STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 

HIS  LIFE 

PUBLIC  SERVICES,  SPEECHES 
AND  PATRIOTISM 


By  Clark  E.  Carr 


THE  ILLINI:  A  STORY  OF  THE  PRAIRIES. 
With  many  portraits.  Seventh  Edition.  Large 
8vo.  $2.00  net. 

MY  DAY  AND  GENERATION.  With  sixty- 
three  illustrations.  Large  8vo.  $3.00  net. 

LINCOLN  AT  GETTYSBURG.  With  por 
traits.  Third  Edition.  l6mo.  $1.00  net. 


A.  C.  McCLURG  &  Co.,  PUBLISHERS 


MAKBLK  STATUE  OF  SENATOR  DOUGLAS  IN  THE 

ILLINOIS  STATE  HISTORICAL  SOCIETY 

LIBRARY  AT  SPRINGFIELD 


STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

HIS   LIFE 

PUBLIC  SERVICES,  SPEECHES 
AND  PATRIOTISM 


BY 


CLARK  E.  CARR,  LL.D. 

AUTHOR    OF    "THE    ILLINI,"    "MY   DAY   AND    GENERATION" 
"LINCOLN   AT   GETTYSBURG,"    ETC. 


ILLUSTRATED 


CHICAGO 

A.  C,  McCLUBG  &  CO. 
1909 


COPYRIGHTED 

BY  CLARK  E.  CARR 

1909 


Published  October  30,  1909 


THE   UNIVERSITY  PRE3S,   CAMBRIDGE,  U.  S.  A. 


FOREWORD 

THE  author  of  this  work  has  been  for  several 
years  considering  making  an  attempt  to  place 
Senator  Douglas  before  the  public  as  he  ap 
peared,  when  a  conspicuous  actor  in  public  affairs,  a 
half  century  ago.  While  the  author  then  was  and  still 
is  a  Republican  in'  politics,  identified  with  the  party 
that  was  directly  in  antagonism  to  Senator  Douglas 
and  his  later  policies,  he  has  become  satisfied  that  but 
scant  justice  has  been  done  to  the  Senator  —  that  his 
nobility  and  purity  of  character,  and  sublime  patriotism, 
and  transcendent  abilities  have  not  been  appreciated  as 
they  deserve  to  be. 

Abraham  Lincoln,  in  grandeur  of  character  and 
achievements,  became  so  exalted  as  to  overshadow, 
for  a  time,  the  work  of  the  great  Senator;  but  the 
patriotic  people  of  America  should  never  forget  the 
public  services  of  Senator  Douglas.  Great  as  is 
the  fame  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  it  may  be  doubted  whether 
his  name  would  have  ever  been  known  to  any  consid 
erable  degree  beyond  the  limits  of  the  State  of  Illinois, 
but  for  his  proving  himself  to  be  able  to  meet  and  suc 
cessfully  cope  with  the  Senator  in  what  are  known  as 
The  Lincoln-Douglas  debates,  and  it  may  also  be  doubted 
whether  President  Lincoln  could  have  been  successful 

190905 


VI  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

in  the  mighty  work  of  maintaining  the  integrity  of  the 
Nation  but  for  the  timely  support  of  Senator  Douglas. 

The  name  of  Senator  Douglas  is  usually  connected 
with  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  and  the 
legislation  incident  thereto,  and  as  the  champion  of  the 
doctrine  of  "  popular  sovereignty."  Comparatively  few 
remember  that,  before  these  measures  were  proposed, 
or  even  thought  of,  he  had,  through  his  broad  and 
comprehensive  views,  and  his  potentiality  in  the  dis 
cussion  of  and  solving  important  public  questions, 
become  the  foremost  American  statesman. 

Those  who  remember  the  potentiality  of  Senator 
Douglas,  and  who  have  a  proper  conception  of  his  char 
acter  and  statesmanship,  are  rapidly  passing  away. 
Because  of  this  the  publishers  wished  to  have  one 
whose  memory  goes  back  to  those  ante  bellum  times, 
and  who  knew  both  Lincoln  and  Douglas,  to  give  some 
of  his  recollections  of  the  stirring  events  in  which  they 
acted,  and  so  the  author  has  consented  to  carry  into 
execution  the  work  he  has  long  contemplated.  He  will 
be  more  than  satisfied  if  he  has  succeeded  in  placing 
the  great  Senator  before  the  reader  as  he  deserves. 

CLARK  E.  CARR. 

GALESBURG,  ILLINOIS,  September   1,  1909. 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  PAQB 

I.    FIRST  APPEARANCE  IN  ILLINOIS 

II.    EARLY  LIFE 

III.  His  POLITICAL  PROMINENCE 4 

IV.  A  JACKSON  DEMOCRAT * 

V.    MARTIN  VAN  BUREN 9 

VI.    DOUGLAS  TAKES  HIS  SEAT  IN  CONGRESS 12 

VII.    THE  OLD  MAN  ELOQUENT 14 

VIII.    THE  MEXICAN  WAR 16 

IX.    THE  OREGON  BOUNDARY 20 

X.    THE  ILLINOIS  CENTRAL  RAILWAY 23 

XI.    THE  PACIFIC  RAILWAY 25 

XII.    INLAND  WATERWAYS 27 

XIII.  THE  CLAYTON-BULWER  TREATY 28 

XIV.  AN  ISTHMIAN  CANAL 30 

XV.    DOUGLAS  WOULD  NOT  LIMIT  THE  BOUNDARIES  OF  THE 

REPUBLIC l     •     .     .     •  34 

XVI.    THE  COMPROMISE  MEASURES  OF  1850 38 

XVII.    A  PORTRAYAL  OF  SENATOR  DOUGLAS 41 

XVIII.    SENATOR  DOUGLAS'S  FAMILY 49 

XIX.    THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CHICAGO 50 

XX.    THE  MISTAKE  OF  SENATOR  DOUGLAS'S  LIFE  ....  53 

XXI.    DOUGLAS'S  POSITION  ON  SLAVERY 58 

XXII.    THE  HEROISM  OF  DOUGLAS  .     .  • 62 


Vlii  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  pAQE 

XXIII.  SPEECH    OF     DOUGLAS    AGAINST    THE    LECOMPTON 

CONSTITUTION 65 

XXIV.  PRESIDENTIAL    DICTATION    TO   MEMBERS   OF   CON 

GRESS  70 

XXV.    RECAPITULATION 73 

XXVI.    ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 75 

XXVII.    THE  LINCOLN-DOUGLAS  DEBATES 80 

XXVIII.    THE  PRESIDENCY 90 

XXIX.    THE  CHARLESTON  CONVENTION 94 

XXX.  LINCOLN  AND  DOUGLAS  CANDIDATES  FOR  PRESIDENT  98 

XXXI.  THE  PATRIOTISM  OF  SENATOR  DOUGLAS    .     .     .     .  105 

XXXII.  STRENUOUS  EFFORTS  TO  EFFECT  A  COMPROMISE     .  110 

XXXIII.  THE  SOUTHERN  CONFEDERACY 114 

XXXIV.  A  SOLID  SOUTH  AND  A  DIVIDED  NORTH    .     .     .     .  118 
XXXV.  INAUGURATION  OF  PRESIDENT  LINCOLN      ,     .     .     .  123 

XXXVI.    A  MOMENTOUS  CONFERENCE 129 

XXXVII.  DOUGLAS  AROUSES  HIS  PARTY  IN  THE  NORTH    .     .  132 

XXXVIII.  SPEAKS  AT  SPRINGFIELD  AND  CHICAGO      ....  135 

XXXIX.    THE  NORTH  UNITED 140 

XL.    DOUGLAS'S  LAST  ADMONITION  .          148 


APPENDIX 

SENATOR  DOUGLAS'S  SPEECH  in  the  House  of  Representa 
tives  in  vindication  of  Andrew  Jackson.  Delivered  Jan 
uary  7,  1844 145 

SPEECH  IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES  on  the  Annex 
ation  of  Texas  and  the  Mexican  War.  Delivered  May, 
1846,  in  reply  to  John  Quincy  Adams 156 

EXTRACTS  FROM  SPEECHES  on  the  Oregon  Boundary  .     .     .     168 

POLICY  WITH  FOREIGN  NATIONS.     Clayton-Bulwer    Treaty. 

Speech  in  the  Senate,  February  14,  1853 169 

TERRITORIAL  EXPANSION,  FOREIGN  AGGRESSION.     Speech 

in  the  Senate,  March  10,  1853 179 


CONTENTS  IX 

PAGE 
THE  KANSAS-NEBRASKA  BILL.  Speech  in  the  Senate, 

March  3,  1854 187 

THE  LECOMPTON  CONSTITUTION.  Speech  in  the  Senate, 

March  22,  1857 218 

INTERNAL  IMPROVEMENTS.  Letter  to  Governor  Matteson  .  235 

PACIFIC  RAILWAY.  Speech  in  the  Senate,  April  17,  1858  .  243 

FINAL  PLEA  FOR  THE  UNION.     Last  Speech  in  the  Senate, 

January  3,  1861 252 

ARTICLE  BY  CLARK  E.  CARR,  showing  that  Douglas  was  not 

* 'driven  into  a  corner"  at  Freeport 276 

INDEX  .                          287 


ILLUSTRATIONS 


PAGE 

MARBLE  STATUE  OF  DOUGLAS  IN  THE  ILLINOIS  STATE  HIS 
TORICAL  SOCIETY  LIBRARY  AT  SPRINGFIELD       .     .  Frontispiece 

BIRTHPLACE  AT  BRANDON,  VERMONT 

PORTRAIT  OF  ANDREW  JACKSON,  PRESIDENT  1829-1837     .  6 

PORTRAIT  OF  WILLIAM  HENRY  HARRISON 

PORTRAIT  OF  MARTIN  VAN  BUREN 

PORTRAIT  OF  JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS 

PORTRAIT  OF  BARON  VON  HUMBOLDT 30 

PORTRAIT  OF  JOHN  HAY ®% 

PORTRAIT  OF  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 44 

PORTRAIT  OF  JOHN  D.  ROCKEFELLER 50 

DOUGLAS  MONUMENT 52 

PORTRAIT  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN 60 

PORTRAIT  OF  HORACE  GREELEY 74 

KNOX  COLLEGE  TABLET  SHOWING  SPOT  WHERE  LINCOLN  AND 

DOUGLAS  MET  IN  THE  GREAT  DEBATE  AT  GALESBURG      .  80 

PORTRAIT  OF  FRANKLIN  PIERCE 96 

PORTRAIT  OF  JOHN  C.  BRECKENRIDGE 102 

PORTRAIT  OF  JOHN  J.  CRITTENDEN 108 

PORTRAIT  OF  BENJAMIN  F.  WADE 112 

PORTRAIT  OF  REUBEN  H.  WALWORTH 120 

PORTRAIT  OF  JEFFERSON  DAVIS 128 

PORTRAIT  OF  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 134 

PORTRAIT  OF  S.  M.  CULLOM 136 


Xil  ILLUSTRATIONS 

PAGE 

PORTEAIT    OF    ED  WARD    A.  POLLARD 140 

THE  TREMONT  HOUSE,  CHICAGO 143 

PORTRAIT  OF  JOHN  SLIDELL 148 

PORTRAIT  OF  GENERAL  W.  J.  WORTH 156 

PORTRAIT  OF  ZACHARY  TAYLOR 160 

PORTRAIT  OF  SAM  HOUSTON 162 

PORTRAIT  OF  GENERAL  SANTA  ANA 166 

PORTRAIT  OF  HENRY  CLAY 184 

PORTRAIT  OF  PRESIDENT  JAMES  K.  POLK  .  204 


STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 

CHAPTER  I 

FIRST  APPEARANCE  IN   ILLINOIS 

SLENDER  of  figure,  only  five  feet  four  in  height, 
and  only  twenty  years  old,  without  a  friend  and 
with  scarcely  an  acquaintance  within  a  thousand 
miles,  with  but  a  few  cents  in  his  pocket,  Stephen  A. 
Douglas,  in  the  Spring  of  1833,  walked  into  the  town 
of  Winchester  in  Scott  County,  Illinois,  with  his  coat  on 
his  arm,  in  the  hope  of  being  able  to  find  employment. 

As  he  proceeded  along  the  main  street  of  the  town  he 
saw  quite  a  number  of  people  assembled,  and  learned 
that  there  was  to  be  an  auction  of  the  goods  and  chat 
tels  and  live-stock  of  some  citizen  of  the  county.  The 
young  man  paused  to  ask  a  question,  when  he  was 
asked  whether  he  could  write  and  keep  accounts;  to 
which  he  replied  in  the  affirmative.  It  was  then  pro 
posed  to  him  that  he  act  as  clerk  of  the  auction,  and  he 
engaged  to  do  so  at  the  wages  of  two  dollars  a  day. 
The  auction  continued  for  three  days,  and  he  was  paid 
six  dollars  for  his  services. 

This  was  the  first  money  he  ever  earned. 

The  young  man  soon  found  an  opportunity  for  more 
permanent  employment  by  opening  a  private  school. 
He  got  together  forty  scholars  for  a  term  of  three 


2  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

months,  at  three  dollars  a  scholar,  which  gave  him 
enough  for  his  immediate  wants.  He  had  studied  the 
law  in  an  Eastern  State  and,  while  thus  teaching,  he 
continued  that  study. 

Within  ten  years  after  that  friendless  boy  walked 
into  that  town,  he  had  been  admitted  to  the  bar,  im 
mediately  becoming  a  successful  lawyer;  had  been  a 
member  of  the  Illinois  Legislature;  had  been  Prose 
cuting  Attorney ;  had  been  Register  of  the  Land 
Office  at  Springfield ;  had  been  Secretary  of  State 
of  Illinois ;  had  been  a  Judge  of  the  Supreme  Court  of 
Illinois,  presiding  upon  the  bench ;  and  was  on  his  way 
to  Washington  to  take  his  seat  in  the  Lower  House  of 
Congress,  to  which  position  he  had  been  elected.  When 
the  Congressional  term  expired  he  was  reflected,  and 
then  reflected  again,  each  time  by  increased  majorities. 
When  about  to  enter  upon  his  third  term  in  the  Lower 
House  of  Congress  he  was  elected  to  the  United  States 
Senate  for  six  years.  When  that  term  in  the  Senate 
expired  he  was  reflected  for  another  term  practically 
without  opposition.  Six  years  later  he  was  confronted 
by  Abraham  Lincoln  in  the  great  debates ;  he  was  vic 
torious,  and  was  reflected  to  a  third  term ;  upon  this 
he  served  but  little  more  than  two  years,  when  he  died, 
at  forty-eight  years  of  age. 


CHAPTER  II 

EARLY   LIFE 

DOUGLAS  was  born  at  Brandon,  Vermont,  on 
the  twenty-third  of  April,  1813.  During  his 
infancy,  his  father,  Dr.  Douglas,  died.  The 
child  grew  up  on  a  farm,  working  in  the  field  in  the 
Summer  and  attending  district  school  during  the  Win 
ter.  At  fifteen  he  expected  to  be  sent  to  college ;  but 
his  widowed  mother  could  not  afford  such  an  outlay, 
and  he  was  apprenticed  to  a  cabinet-maker  and  became 
proficient  at  the  trade.  It  was  said  facetiously,  after 
he  became  dominant  in  public  affairs  at  Washington, 
that  he  was  still  a  cabinet-maker,  proficient  in  making 
Cabinets  and  Bureaus. 

When  he  was  seventeen,  his  mother  married  again 
and  moved  to  Canandaigua,  New  York,  taking  the  boy 
with  her.  He  then  had  the  advantages  of  the  fine 
academy  located  there,  of  which  he  availed  himself, 
and  became  an  excellent  scholar.  He  remained  at 
Canandaigua  for  three  years,  and,  in  addition  to  his 
academic  studies,  he  found  time  to  study  law  in  the 
office  of  one  of  the  leading  lawyers  of  the  place. 
From  Canandaigua,  in  1833,  at  twenty  years  of  age, 
he  made  his  way  alone  to  Illinois  and  appeared  at 
Winchester,  as  has  been  stated. 


CHAPTER  III 
HIS  POLITICAL  PROMINENCE 

SENATOR  DOUGLAS  was  several  times  presented 
by  Illinois  for  nomination  to  the  Presidency 
in  Democratic  national  conventions,  and  finally  in 
1860  received  a  majority  of  the  votes  of  the  convention 
and  became  a  candidate  before  the  people;  but  the 
Southern  wing  of  the  party  which  opposed  him  with 
drew,  claiming  that,  under  the  two-thirds  rule  of  the 
Democratic  party,  he  was  not  regularly  nominated.  In 
that  election  Senator  Douglas  received  an  enormous 
popular  vote  for  President,  but  Abraham  Lincoln  was 
elected. 

Stephen  A.  Douglas  was  for  several  years  the  fore 
most  American  statesman.  For  nearly  a  quarter  of  a 
century  he  was  prominently  connected  with,  and  poten 
tial  in,  all  the  great  measures  that  came  before  the 
country. 


CHAPTER  IV 

A  JACKSON   DEMOCRAT 


W^HEN  Douglas  first  arrived  in  Illinois,  Andrew 
Jackson  was  President  and  was  just  entering 
upon  his  second  term  of  office,  having  been 
reflected  the  year  before. 

During  all  the  youth  of  Stephen  A.  Douglas,  Andrew 
Jackson  was  his  beau  ideal  of  an  American  patriot  and 
statesman.  The  battle  of  New  Orleans  was  fought  and 
won  by  the  intrepid  hero  when  Douglas  was  two  years 
old. 

General  Jackson  was  a  man  of  most  remarkable 
resources.  The  victory  was  won  through  his  extraor 
dinary  strategy.  To  accomplish  the  result  he  deemed 
it  necessary  to  declare  martial  law,  under  the  rigor  of 
which  men  were  executed.  He  was  on  account  of  this 
confronted  with  many  embarrassments  by  the  actions 
of  his  own  people,  by  American  citizens  who  did  not 
realize  that  a  dictatorship  alone  could  save  the  city  of 
New  Orleans  and  the  State  of  Louisiana  to  the  Union. 
The  General  found  it  necessary  to  arrest  the  United 
States  Federal  Judge,  and  imprison  and  finally  banish 
him.  When,  after  the  victory,  martial  law  was  discon 
tinued  and  civil  government  resumed,  the  Judge  returned 
and  fined  General  Jackson  a  thousand  dollars  for  con 
tempt  of  court.  Friends  tried  to  pay  the  fine,  but  the 


6  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 

General  refused  to  permit  it  and  paid  it  himself.  These 
complications  created  bitter  feelings  of  animosity,  which 
resulted  in  a  Jackson  and  an  anti-Jackson  party.  The 
controversies  were  taken  up  by  the  country,  and  General 
Jackson  became  at  once  the  most  honored  and  the  most 
detested  of  men.  The  Jackson  men  could  not  say 
enough  in  praise  of  their  hero,  and  the  anti-Jackson 
men  could  not  say  enough  against  him.  He  was  called 
a  murderer  and  an  ignorant  boor  by  one  party,  while 
the  other  regarded  him  as  the  sublimest  of  heroes  and 
the  noblest  of  patriots. 

This  controversy  raged  during  the  entire  minority  of 
Stephen  A.  Douglas.  A  youth  of  such  strong  character 
and  such  intensity  of  feeling  could  not  keep  out  of  the 
controversy.  He  must  champion  one  side  or  the  other. 
He  was  a  Jackson  boy  and  a  Jackson  man  so  long  as 
his  hero  lived. 

When  the  boy  was  eleven  years  old  General  Jackson 
first  became  a  candidate  before  the  people  for  President 
of  the  United  States.  He  was  not  elected,  but  his  popu 
larity  proved  to  be  great.  Four  years  later,  when  the 
lad  was  fifteen  years  old,  General  Jackson  was  again  a 
candidate  and  was  elected.  Young  Douglas  was  nineteen 
years  old  when  General  Jackson  was  reflected  to  a  second 
term.  Having  from  his  earliest  childhood  been  inter 
ested  in  and  following  so  closely  the  career  of  his  hero, 
who  had  constantly  been  the  central  figure  in  public 
life,- no  other  man  was  so  familiar  with  his  history  and 
no  other  championed  him  with  greater  zeal  than  did 
young  Douglas. 

During  the  term   of  the   school  he  taught,  young 


ANDREW  JACKSON,  PRESIDENT  1829-1837 

From  a  portrait  loaned  by  the  Smithsonian  Institution 


A  JACKSON  DEMOCRAT  7 

Douglas  had  made  himself  familiar  with  the  Illinois 
statutes  and  reports,  and  was  admitted  to  the  practice 
of  the  law ;  and  when  the  school  closed,  he  opened  an 
office  in  Jacksonville.  From  the  first  he  found  clients. 

President  Jackson  had  but  a  short  time  before  re 
moved  the  Government  deposits  from  the  National 
Bank,  and  vetoed  its  charter.  A  meeting  was  called  in 
the  Courthouse  to  indorse  the  President,  and  Douglas, 
young  as  he  was,  was  called  upon  to  present  the  reso 
lutions,  which  were  violently  opposed.  To  the  aston 
ishment  of  everybody  this  stripling  who  had  but  just 
attained  his  majority,  this  petite  stranger,  this  little 
man,  made  the  finest  address  in  vindication  of  the  hero 
President,  that  had  ever  been  heard  in  Jacksonville. 
His  appearance  to  champion  such  a  cause  was  at  first 
regarded  as  ludicrous,  and  he  was  an  object  of  derision ; 
but,  as  he  proceeded,  men  listened  and  became  absorbed 
in  his  statements,  his  arguments,  his  illustrations,  his 
citing  of  precedents,  his  conclusions,  to  such  a  degree  as 
to  realize  that  they  had  before  them  in  that  young  man 
an  orator  and  a  statesman.  This,  it  must  be  remem 
bered,  was  in  the  most  cultivated,  scholarly,  and  the 
only  college  town  in  Illinois.  The  long  years  of  study 
and  training  under  the  spell  of  this  hero  worship  which 
had  been  the  inspiration  of  his  life  had  borne  fruit. 

President  Jackson  was  in  himself  the  embodiment  of 
Democracy,  and  Stephen  A.  Douglas  had  thus  already 
proven  himself  to  be  the  best  informed  and  the  ablest 
champion  of  the  Democratic  party  in  Illinois.  In  an 
incredibly  short  time  his  fame  extended  to  all  that 
region  and  throughout  the  State. 


8  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 

So  great  had  become  the  reputation  of  the  young 
orator,  and  so  great  his  influence,  as  to  alarm  the  Whigs, 
who  came  to  realize  that,  unless  checked,  he  would 
carry  the  whole  people  with  him.  The  ablest  men  were 
pitted  against  him.  He  met  them  fearlessly  in  joint  de 
bate,  and  not  only  held  his  own  but  constantly  added  to 
his  reputation  and  strengthened  himself  with  the  people. 

The  Rev.  Wm.  H.  Milburn,  since  chaplain  of  the 
United  States  Senate,  known  as  the  blind  orator,  de 
scribes  Douglas,  as  he  saw  him  engaged  in  one  of  these 
contests,  as  follows : 

"  The  first  time  I  saw  Mr.  Douglas  was  in  June,  1838, 
standing  on  the  gallery  of  the  Market  House,  which 
some  of  my  readers  may  recollect  as  situated  in  the 
middle  of  the  square  at  Jacksonville.  He  and  Colonel 
John  J.  Hardin  were  engaged  in  canvassing  Morgan 
County  for  Congress.  He  was  on  the  threshold  of  that 
great  world  in  which  he  has  since  played  so  prominent  a 
part.  I  stood  and  listened  to  him  surrounded  by  a 
motley  crowd  of  backwood  farmers  and  hunters  dressed 
in  homespun  or  deerskin,  my  boyish  breast  glowing  with 
exultant  joy,  as  he,  only  ten  years  my  senior  [Douglas 
was  then  twenty-five],  battled  so  bravely  for  the  doc 
trines  of  his  party  with  the  veteran  and  accomplished 
Hardin.  ...  He  even  then  showed  signs  of  that  dex 
terity  in  debate  and  vehement  and  impressive  declama 
tion  of  which  he  has  since  become  such  a  master.  .  .  . 
Less  than  four  years  before,  he  had  walked  into  the 
town  of  Winchester,  sixteen  miles  from  Jacksonville, 
an  entire  stranger,  with  thirty-seven  and  a  half  cents 
in  his  pocket,  his  all  of  earthly  fortune/' 


CHAPTER  V 

MARTIN  VAN  BUREN 

IN  those  days  there  were  no  packed  caucuses,  no 
political  bosses,  no  delegates,  and  no  nominating 
conventions.  Any  man  could  become  a  candi 
date  by  announcing  himself  or  by  having  his  friends 
announce  him.  It  was  in  this  way  that  all  the 
prominent  men  of  those  days  in  Illinois  first  became 
candidates  before  the  people. 

The  machine  politicians,  the  bosses,  and  the  caucus 
managers,  were  not  then  able  to  crowd  out  men  of 
ability  and  to  fill  public  places  with  men  of  calibre 
similar  to  their  own. 

Soon  after  the  appearance  of  Douglas  in  politics 
came  a  Presidential  campaign.  General  Jackson's 
second  term  was  drawing  to  a  close.  The  General 
could  not  himself  be  again  a  candidate,  but  he  could 
dictate  the  choice  of  his  successor.  He  chose  his 
friend  and  former  cabinet  officer,  who  was  Vice  Presi 
dent,  having  been  elected  upon  the  same  ticket  with 
himself,  Martin  Van  Buren.  There  was  no  question 
after  General  Jackson  spoke  as  to  Douglas's  choice. 
President  Jackson's  opinions  were  always  followed  by 
the  young  orator.  He  canvassed  the  State  for  Van 
Buren,  who  triumphantly  carried  it,  and  was  elected. 


10  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 

When  that  campaign  closed,  Stephen  A.  Douglas  at 
the  age  of  twenty-four  was  the  best-known  public  man 
in  Illinois. 

As  we  have  stated,  Douglas  was  chosen  for  and  held 
positions  of  trust  and  responsibility,  almost  from  the 
time  he  appeared  in  the  State.  To  the  duties  of  these 
offices  he  gave  careful  attention,  in  addition  to  his 
marvellous  work  "  on  the  stump."  When  he  could  not 
give  personal  attention  to  details  he  always  found 
faithful  and  efficient  help.  There  were  no  scandals  in 
his  administration  of  public  office. 

Douglas  had  now  become  more  potential  than  any 
other  Democrat  in  Illinois.  The  time  again  came 
when,  in  order  to  hold  the  State  to  the  Democracy,  he 
must  put  forth  his  whole  strength. 

Van  Buren's  term  drew  to  a  close,  and  General 
Jackson,  still  wishing  to  maintain  his  influence  and 
power,  proclaimed  from  his  retreat  at  the  Hermitage 
his  desire  for  Mr.  Van  Buren's  reelection.  With 
Douglas  the  will  of  Jackson  still  was  law,  and,  desper 
ate  as  was  the  contest,  never  was  a  candidate  for 
President  supported  with  such  zeal  and  with  such 
efficiency  in  his  candidacy  for  reelection  as  was  Martin 
Van  Buren  by  Stephen  A.  Douglas. 

In  that  year  (1840)  such  a  political  tidal  wave  swept 
over  the  country  as  had  never  before  been  known. 
The  country  was  deluged,  overwhelmed  by  it.  The 
song  of  "Tippecanoe  and  Tyler  too'*  reverberated 
throughout  the  land.  Hard  cider  was  on  tap  in  every 
house,  and  coon-skins  were  the  emblems  nailed  upon 
nearly  every  cabin  door. 


WILLIAM   HENRY  HARRISON 


MARTIN  VAN  BUREN  11 

It  seemed  futile  to  attempt  to  stem  the  tide,  but 
Stephen  A.  Douglas  by  the  majesty  of  his  power  saved 
Illinois  to  General  Jackson,  to  Van  Buren,  and  to  the 
Democratic  party.  Never  had  there  been  such  a  cam 
paign  as  he  made.  In  the  midst  of  the  craze  for  hard 
cider  and  coon-skins,  the  din  of  campaign  music,  the 
hoarse  plaudits  of  campaign  orators,  the  cheers  for 
"  Tippecanoe  and  Tyler  too  "  upon  the  prairies,  rose  the 
voice  of  Stephen  A.  Douglas  calling  the  people  to  halt, 
and  hold  fast  to  the  principles  of  the  mighty  chieftain 
who  had  so  long  been  their  guiding  star.  In  the  cam 
paign,  Douglas,  then  but  twenty-seven  years  old,  was 
far  and  away  the  foremost  orator  in  Illinois.  He 
spoke  for  seven  months,  addressing  two  hundred  and 
seven  different  political  meetings.  It  was  then  that  he 
began  to  be  generally  known  as  "  The  Little  Giant." 

Illinois  and  New  Hampshire  were  the  only  Northern 
States  that  gave  their  electoral  votes  to  Mr.  Van  Buren 
and  against  William  Henry  Harrison. 


CHAPTER  VI 
DOUGLAS  TAKES   HIS    SEAT   IN   CONGRESS 

SENATOR  DOUGLAS  took  his  seat  in  Congress  in 
December,  1843.     He  was  then  thirty  years  old, 
and,  as  has  been  said,  it  was  but  ten  years  since 
he  first  appeared  in  Illinois. 

Curiously  his  first  effort  and  success  was  in  vindica 
tion  of  the  hero  whom  he  had  worshipped  and  followed 
from  his  childhood.  Judge  Hall  of  the  Federal  Court 
at  New  Orleans  had,  as  has  been  stated,  fined  General 
Jackson  a  thousand  dollars,  which  the  hero  had  paid 
out  of  his  own  pocket.  A  bill  had  been  for  several 
years  pending  in  Congress  to  refund  that  money  to  the 
General,  and,  although  he  had  since  served  two  terms  as 
President  of  the  United  States,  the  bill,  thus  far,  could 
not  be  passed.  Douglas  waited  modestly  a  proper  time 
for  a  new  member  before  venturing  to  put  himself 
forward,  and  when  he  did,  his  appearance  in  debate 
was  in  support  of  the  bill  in  vindication  of  the  acts  of 
General  Jackson  arguing  that  they  were  not  only 
justifiable,  but  that  Jackson  would  have  been  recreant 
to  his  duty  had  he  failed  to  declare  martial  law  and 
carry  into  effect  such  drastic  measures  as  he  adopted. 

The  right  and  the  duty  under  the  conditions  that 
confronted  General  Jackson,  of  proclaiming  martial 
law,  and  suspending  the  privilege  of  the  writ  of 


DOUGLAS  TAKES  HIS  SEAT  IN  CONGRESS  13 

habeas  corpus,  was  so  clearly  shown  in  the  speech  of 
Mr.  Douglas  that  the  bill  was  passed  and  became  a 
law.  The  interpretation  of  the  law  in  this  matter  by 
Mr.  Douglas  was  made  so  plain  that  it  was  followed 
as  a  precedent  in  the  Civil  War. 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE  OLD  MAN  ELOQUENT 

JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS  was  then  a  member  of 
the  House.  This  great  man  had  gone  through  all 
the  gradations  of  political  preferment  —  United 
States  Minister  to  the  greatest  countries  of  the  earth, 
United  States  Senator,  Secretary  of  State,  and  had 
finally  reached  the  highest  goal  of  all  American  states 
men,  the  Presidency.  At  the  end  of  his  Presidential 
term  he  was  tendered  by  his  fellow-citizens  of  Massa 
chusetts  a  seat  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  where 
he  served  for  seventeen  years,  until  finally  stricken 
down  in  his  seat  with  paralysis  while  still  devoting 
himself  to  his  country's  service.  He  was  the  son  of 
John  Adams,  the  second  President  of  the  United  States, 
and  a  graduate  of  Harvard,  where  he  was  for  a  time  a 
professor.  No  living  American  had  had  such  extraor 
dinary  opportunities  and  such  experiences,  and  few 
were  so  learned.  He  was  called  "the  old  man 
eloquent." 

It  was  perhaps  but  natural  and  inevitable  that  the 
great  statesman  should  not  at  first  have  looked  with 
favor  upon  the  ambitious  young  man  who  came  into 
the  House  as  one  of  the  representatives  of  a  new  State 
of  the  West.  When  Douglas  entered  Congress  Mr. 
Adams  had  been  a  member  of  the  House  for  twelve 


2 -We*  ^.. 


MARTIN  VAN   BUHEN 


THE  OLD  MAN  ELOQUENT  15 

years,  and  was  necessarily  a  leader.  It  has  since  been 
brought  to  light  that  Mr.  Adams  in  his  diary  called  the 
young  Douglas  a  homunculus,  and  describes  him  as 
"raving  out  his  hour  in  abusive  invectives,  his  face 
convulsed,  his  gesticulation  frantic,"  and  lashing  him- " 
self  into  such  heat  that,  if  his  body  had  been  made  of 
combustible  matter  it  would  have  burned  out. 

"  In  the  midst  of  his  roaring,  to  save  himself  from 
choking,  he  stript  off  and  cast  away  his  cravat,  unbut 
toned  his  waistcoat,  and  had  the  air  and  aspect  of  a 
half  naked  pugilist." 

Mr.  Adams  was  no  doubt  very  much  prejudiced 
against  what  seemed  to  him  an  upstart.  No  doubt  Mr. 
Douglas  had  acquired  some  of  the  ways  of  public  speak 
ing  that  were  then  common  in  the  West.  If  Douglas 
really  had  taken  on  some  of  these  peculiarities  he  very 
soon,  without  losing  his  force  and  vigor,  so  adjusted 
himself  to  the  new  conditions  as  to  gain  the  respect 
and  good  will  of  all  the  members  of  the  House.  He 
certainly  proved  himself  capable  of  taking  care  of 
himself,  even  in  a  conflict  with  Mr.  Adams. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

THE   MEXICAN   WAR 

DOUGLAS  was  an  earnest  and  most  enthusiastic 
supporter  of  his  party  and  of  the  administra 
tion  of  President  Polk  in  advocacy  of  the  pros 
ecution  of  a  war  with  Mexico.  He  believed  in 
the  war,  and  did  not  object  to  the  acquisition  through 
the  war  of  new  territory.  He  looked  with  longing 
eyes  toward  the  vast  region  west  of  that  we  had 
acquired  by  the  Louisiana  Purchase.  It  was  after 
wards  claimed  by  his  friends  that  but  for  him  there 
would  have  been  no  Mexican  war,  and  that  to  him 
more  than  to  any  other  were  we  indebted  for  the 
acquisition  of  California,  New  Mexico,  and  Arizona. 

Mr.  Adams  represented  that  New  England  Northern 
sentiment  which  was,  above  everything  else,  fearful 
that,  if  our  territory  were  extended  to  the  southwest 
the  South  might  acquire  preponderance  in  the  Govern 
ment.  Consequently  Mr.  Adams  was  violently  opposed 
to  the  Mexican  war. 

Mr.  Adams  soon  found  that  there  was  more  in  this 
stripling  of  thirty,  whom  he  had  designated  as  a  homun- 
culus  than  he  at  first  supposed. 

Never  were  the  tables  turned  upon  an  adversary  in 
debate  more  completely  and  triumphantly  than  Doug 
las  turned  them  upon  the  venerable  statesman,  and 


THE  MEXICAN  WAR  17 

never  was  an  antagonist  discomfited  and  overwhelmed 
in  a  manner  so  courteous  and  complimentary.  For 
completeness  and  conclusiveness  in  turning  the  posi 
tions  and  arguments  and  conclusions  of  an  adversary 
against  himself,  that  of  the  youthful  Douglas  upon  the 
venerable  Mr.  Adams  has  no  parallel.  Never  was 
another  man  silenced  in  a  manner  so  flattering  to 
himself. 

The  Mexicans  had  made  attacks  upon  Americans  on 
the  east  side  of  the  Rio  Grande  River.  This,  declared 
Douglas,  and  all  the  supporters  of  the  administration, 
was  an  invasion  of  our  territory  and,  therefore,  clearly 
a  casus  belli.  The  opponents  of  the  war  declared  that 
Texas  did  not  extend  to  the  Rio  Grande  but  only  to  the 
Nueces  River.  The  Mexicans,  while  they  crossed  the 
Rio  Grande,  did  not  cross  the  Nueces.  Therefore,  de 
clared  the  anti-war  party,  there  had  been  no  invasion 
of  our  territory  and  there  was  no  casus  belli.  The 
whole  question  turned  upon  what  was  the  western 
boundary  of  Texas.  Mr.  Adams  was  especially  strenu 
ous  and  earnest  in  taking  the  position  that  the  western 
boundary  of  Texas  was  the  Nueces  River  and  not  the 
Rio  Grande.  By  a  series  of  questions  Douglas  made 
Mr.  Adams  commit  himself  most  positively  to  that 
position. 

When  the  venerable  statesman  had  entirely  and  fully 
so  committed  himself,  Douglas  drew  from  his  desk  a 
printed  volume  the  contents  of  which  he  proceeded  to 
explain.  It  was  a  despatch  prepared  by  Mr.  Adams 
himself  nearly  thirty  years  before,  while  Secretary  of 
State  in  President  Monroe's  cabinet,  which  proved 


18  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

beyond  question  that  the  Rio  Grande  River  was  the  west 
ern  boundary  of  Texas  and  that  the  country  between  the 
Nueces  and  the  Rio  Grande  was  a  part  of  Texas. 

Never  in  all  of  his  illustrious  public  career,  running 
through  a  period  of  more  than  half  a  century,  was  the 
great  statesman  so  completely  discomfited,  and  it  may 
be  doubted  whether  he  ever  received  such  flattering 
commendation. 

In  presenting  the  document  to  the  House  Mr.  Douglas 
said  : 

"Texas  (before  her  revolution)  was  always  under 
stood  to  have  been  a  portion  of  the  old  province  of 
Louisiana,  whilst  Coahuila  was  one  of  the  Spanish 
provinces  of  Mexico.  By  ascertaining  the  western 
boundary  of  Louisiana,  therefore,  prior  to  the  transfer 
by  France  to  Spain,  we  discovered  the  dividing  line 
between  Texas  and  Coahuila.  I  will  not  weary  the 
patience  of  the  House  by  an  examination  of  the  author 
ities  in  detail.  I  will  content  myself  by  referring  the 
gentleman  to  a  document  in  which  he  will  find  them 
all  collected  and  analyzed  in  a  masterly  manner,  by 
one  whose  learning  and  accuracy  he  will  not  question.  I 
allude  to  a  despatch  (perhaps  I  might  with  propriety 
call  it  a  book  from  its  great  length)  written  by  our 
Secretary  of  State  in  1819  to  Don  Onis,  the  Spanish 
Minister.  The  document  is  to  be  found  in  the  State 
papers.  He  will  there  find  a  multitudinous  collection 
of  old  maps  and  musty  records,  histories,  and  geographies 
—  Spanish,  English,  and  French  —  by  which  it  is  clearly 
established  that  the  Rio  del  Norte  was  the  western  bound 
ary  of  Louisiana,  and  so  considered  by  Spain  and  France 


JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS 


THE  MEXICAN  WAR  19 

both,  when  they  owned  the  opposite  banks  of  that  river. 
The  venerable  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  (Mr. 
Adams)  in  that  famous  despatch  reviews  all  the  authori 
ties  on  either  side  with  a  clearness  and  ability  which 
defy  refutation,  and  demonstrate  the  validity  of  our 
title  by  virtue  of  the  purchase  of  Louisiana.  He  went 
further  and  expressed  his  own  convictions,  upon  a  full 
examination  of  the  whole  question,  that  our  title  as  far 
as  the  Rio  del  Norte,  was  as  clear  as  to  the  Island  of 
New  Orleans.  This  was  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Adams  in 
1819.  It  was  the  opinion  of  Messrs.  Monroe  and 
Pinckney  in  1805.  It  was  the  opinion  of  Jefferson  and 
Madison  —  of  all  our  Presidents  and  of  all  adminis 
trations  from  its  acquisition  in  1803  to  its  fatal  re- 
linquishment  in  1819." 

In  the  lapse  of  nearly  thirty  years,  during  which  there 
had  been  crowded  into  his  life  the  duties  and  vast  re 
sponsibilities  of  Secretary  of  State,  the  Presidency,  and 
membership  of  that  House,  besides  all  his  literary  work, 
it  is  not  remarkable  that  the  memory  of  that  famous 
despatch  was  crowded  out. 

In  reply  "  the  grand  old  man  "  pleaded  that  he  made 
the  best  case  possible  for  his  country,  as  he  surely  did 
-  so  good  a  case  as  to  set  at  rest  the  dispute  upon  the 
question  of  the  boundary  of  Texas. 


CHAPTER  IX 

THE  OREGON  BOUNDARY 

IT  is  difficult  for  people  of  this  generation  to  realize 
how  much  was  involved  in  the  question  of  the 
northern  boundary  of  Oregon.  Our  people  claimed 
that  the  western  coast  almost  up  to  the  present  bound 
ary  of  Alaska,  to  the  parallel  of  fifty-four  degrees  and 
forty  minutes,  then  designated  as  Oregon,  belonged  to 
us.  Great  Britain  claimed  that  that  whole  coast  clear 
down  to  California  belonged  to  her.  Fur  traders  and 
trappers  of  both  nations  had  made  their  way  into  those 
wild  regions  and  through  this,  both  the  United  States 
and  Great  Britain  had  indefinite  and  inchoate  claims  to 
certain  localities.  British  vessels  had  skirted  along  the 
Pacific  coast  and  ascended  for  short  distances  rivers 
that  flowed  into  the  ocean.  As  a  legal  proposition  the 
question  of  title  turned  in  a  great  degree  upon  discovery 
and  occupancy,  — whether  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company, 
a  British  commercial  organization  and  its  agents,  or  the 
American  Fur  Company  and  its  agents  had  been  fore 
most  in  discovering  and  most  persistent  in  holding  the 
territory.  Really,  if  ever  a  matter  of  momentous  im 
portance  depended  upon  determined,  united,  positive 
aggressiveness  —  call  it  nerve,  gall,  or  what  you  will  —  on 
the  part  of  the  United  States,  it  was  the  Oregon  bound 
ary  question. 


THE  OREGON  BOUNDARY  21 

Senator  Douglas  declared  that  our  title  to  the  Oregon 
country,  up  to  fifty-four  degrees  and  forty  minutes,  was 
clear  and  unquestionable  and  that  he  never  would,  now 
or  hereafter,  yield  up  one  inch  of  Oregon  to  either 
Great  Britain  or  any  other  government. 

He  believed  that,  if  our  Government  could  be  so 
aroused  as  to  present  a  united  front ;  an  inexorable  deter 
mination  in  claiming  all  that  region  as  ours,  Great 
Britain  would  yield  as  she  did  on  the  northeastern 
boundary  question  which  was  finally  fixed  by  the  Ash- 
burton  Treaty.  The  Senate  was  then  unanimous  in 
asserting  the  justice  of  our  claim  and  the  House  of 
Representatives  stood  one  hundred  and  ninety-seven  for 
it,  with  but  six  against  it,  Senator  Douglas  insisted 
that  if  we  would  be  so  united  upon  the  Oregon  question, 
all  that  vast  region  would  be  conceded  to  us  and  that 
there  would  be  no  war,  but  that  we  could  better  afford 
to  fight  than  surrender  it.  He  realized,  as  did  few 
other  men,  the  importance  to  us  of  our  having  the 
territory  between  the  present  boundary,  as  finally 
settled  upon,  and  the  parallel  of  fifty-four  degrees  and 
forty  minutes.  He  said  that  out  of  that  region  could 
be  carved  three  states  as  large  as  Illinois,  of,  when  de 
veloped,  almost  unlimited  resources,  and  he  knew  that, 
with  all  her  other  vast  enterprises,  that  wild  region  was 
not  regarded  as  of  very  great  importance  to  Great 
Britain.  He  said  that  an  empire  was  involved  in  the 
controversy.  One  will  realize  that  the  Senator  did  not 
overestimate  the  importance  to  us  of  this  controversy  if 
he  will  now  go  and  see  that  country ;  if  he  will  traverse 
Puget  Sound,  the  Gulf  of  Georgia,  and  the  Straits  of 


22  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 

Juan  de  Fuca  and  get  an  idea  of  the  vast  commerce 
to  the  Orient  that  is  springing  up. 

Upon  this  northwestern  boundary  question  Douglas 
found  himself  working  with,  and  under  the  leadership 
of,  the  "  Old  Man  Eloquent,"  John  Quincy  Adams.  In 
the  course  of  a  speech  upon  the  Oregon  question  Mr. 
Adams  avowed  himself  in  favor  of  the  course  of  Fred 
erick  the  Great  in  regard  to  Silesia,  to  "  take  possession 
first,  and  negotiate  afterwards. "  1  The  country  became  so 
interested  in  the  matter  that  "  Fifty-four  forty  or  fight " 
became  the  watchword  of  the  Democratic  party.  Upon 
this  cry  James  K.  Polk  had  been  elected  President. 

But  the  South  did  not  care  to  give  the  North  the 
preponderance  in  the  nation  by  adding  several  more 
free  States  on  the  Northwest.  Because  of  this  our 
claim  was  not  pressed  with  earnestness  and  vigor  except 
by  Senator  Douglas,  who  constantly  urged  that  if  we 
presented  a  united  front,  if  the  United  States  would 
unite  in  the  determination  to  fight  rather  than  give 
up  that  region,  if  we  would  adhere  to  the  "  fifty-four 
forty  or  fight "  doctrine,  our  claim  would  be  conceded ; 
and  he  voted  to  the  last  for  holding  to  our  claim. 

The  representatives  of  Great  Britain  were  not  slow 
in  understanding  precisely  the  embarrassment  of  our  posi 
tion  on  account  of  the  jealousy  between  the  sections,  and 
they  pressed  their  claim  much  stronger,  no  doubt,  than 
they  otherwise  would  have  done.  After  much  negotia 
tion  a  compromise  was  entered  into  fixing  the  present 
boundary  line  on  the  forty-ninth  parallel  of  latitude. 

1  It  will  be  observed  that  in  this  controversy  the  North  was  especially 
interested  as  none  of  that  region  could  become  slave  territory. 


CHAPTER  X 

THE   ILLINOIS   CENTRAL   RAILWAY 

SENATOR  DOUGLAS  was  not  the  pioneer  in  pro 
posing  and  advocating  the  building  of  the  Illinois 
Central  Railway.  Judge  Sidney  Breese  was  the 
projector  and  originator  of  the  enterprise.  But  justice 
to  the  memory  of  Senator  Douglas  requires  that  it  be 
said  that  he  carried  the  measure  through  Congress  and 
made  it  possible  to  build  that  great  highway.  He 
threw  himself  into  the  project  with  all  the  energy  and 
enthusiasm  of  his  great  nature  and  brought  to  its 
support  most  of  the  other  leading  statesmen  of  the 
country. 

A  vast  grant  of  land  was  necessary  to  make  the  road 
possible.  The  road  was  projected  through  a  wilderness 
for  a  distance  of  four  hundred  miles  —  a  vast  stretch  of 
boundless  uninhabited  prairies.  Lands  that  now  sell  at 
a  hundred  and  more  dollars  per  acre  could  not  be  sold 
at  a  dollar  and  a  quarter  an  acre,  the  Government 
price. 

By  the  franchise  every  alternate  section  was  granted 
to  the  railway,  and  those  reserved  by  the  Government, 
the  other  alternate  sections,  were  doubled  in  price  and 
placed  at  two  and  a  half  dollars  an  acre.  Besides  this 
the  railway  company  was  required  to  pay  seven  per 
cent  of  its  gross  earnings  into  the  State  treasury  of 


24  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 

Illinois  for  the  support  of  the  State.  The  amount 
paid  into  the  State  treasury  of  Illinois  by  the  Illinois 
Central  Railway  under  this  wise  provision  already 
amounts  to  the  enormous  sum  of  $25,596,759.10. 
What  a  boon  it  would  have  been  and  would  still  be  to 
Kansas,  Nebraska.  Minnesota,  the  Dakotas,  and  other 
States  had  such  a  provision  been  placed  in  the  charters 
of  their  land-grant  railways. 

The  benefits  of  the  building  of  the  Illinois  Central 
Railway  in  those  early  days  cannot  be  overestimated. 
The  Illinois  Central  opened  to  settlement  a  vast  region 
of  country ;  and  not  only  that,  it  stimulated  the  build 
ing  of  other  lines,  the  aggregate  mileage  of  which  soon 
became  far  greater  than  its  own.1 

1  The  Hon.  Robert  M.  Douglas  of  Greensborough,  North  Carolina, 
the  eldest  son  of  Senator  Douglas,  writes  of  his  father's  relations  to  the 
Illinois  Central  Railway  as  follows : 

"  In  1836,  although  only  twenty-three  years  of  age,  Judge  Douglas, 
then  a  member  of  the  Legislature  of  Illinois,  moved  to  insert  in  each 
charter  granted  a  clause  '  reserving  the  right  to  alter,  amend,  or  repeal 
this  act  whenever  the  public  good  shall  require  it.'  Again  in  1851,  while 
in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  he  insisted  that  the  grant  of  lands 
that  secured  the  building  of  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad  should  be  made 
directly  to  the  State  of  Illinois.  He  then  had  them  given  by  the  State 
to  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad  upon  condition  that  the  road  should  pay 
forever  to  the  State  seven  per  cent  of  its  gross  receipts  in  lieu  of  taxes 
upon  the  original  line.  I  am  informed  that  under  this  agreement  the 
company  has  for  several  years  paid  to  the  State  of  Illinois  an  average  of 
over  one  million  dollars  a  year.  For  the  year  ending  April  30,  1906,  it 
paid  $1,143,097.46." 


CHAPTER  XI 

THE   PACIFIC   RAILWAY 

SENATOR  DOUGLAS  advocated  a  railway  across 
the  continent  just  as  earnestly  as  he  had  cham 
pioned  the  Illinois  Central.  Although  the  project 
was  not  carried  into  effect  until  several  years  after  he 
had  passed  away,  he  was  one  of  the  first  to  advocate  it, 
and  his  speeches  in  its  favor  had  probably  more  influ 
ence  than  those  of  any  other  statesman  in  arousing 
public  sentiment  in  its  favor.  But  for  the  Civil  War 
the  building  of  the  great  railway  would  no  doubt  have 
been  entered  upon  very  soon  after  Senator  Douglas  so 
eloquently  and  earnestly  declared  himself  in  favor  of 
building  it.  Again  and  again  he  urged  the  importance 
of  such  a  great  highway. 

On  the  seventeenth  of  April,  1858,  in  an  elaborate 
and  exhaustive  address  in  the  Senate,  we  find  him 
declaring  upon  the  subject. 

"  I  believe,"  he  exclaimed,  "  it  is  the  greatest  practi 
cal  measure  now  pending  before  the  country.  I  believe 
that  we  have  arrived  at  that  period  in  our  history  when 
our  great  substantial  interests  require  it.  The  interests 
of  commerce,  the  great  interests  of  travel  and  communi 
cation,  those  still  greater  interests  which  bind  the  nation 
together  and  are  to  make  and  preserve  the  continent  as 
one  and  indivisible,  all  demand  that  this  road  shall  be 


26  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

commenced,  prosecuted,  and  completed  at  the  earliest 
practicable  moment. 

"I  am  unwilling  to  postpone  the  bill  until  next 
December.  ...  I  think,  Sir,  we  had  better  grapple 
with  the  difficulties  that  surround  this  measure  now, 
when  it  is  fairly  before  us,  when  we  have  time  to  con 
sider  it  as  dispassionately,  as  calmly,  as  wisely,  as  we 
shall  ever  be  able  to  do. 

"I  have  regretted  to  see  the  question  of  sectional 
advantage  brought  into  this  discussion.1 

"  If  you  are  to  have  but  one  road,  fairness  and  jus 
tice  would  plainly  indicate  that  that  one  should  be 
located  as  near  the  centre  as  practicable.  The  Missouri 
River  is  near  the  centre,  and  the  line  of  this  road  is  as 
near  as  it  can  be  made ;  and  if  there  is  but  one  to  be 
made,  the  route  now  indicated  in  my  opinion  is  fair,  is 
just,  and  ought  to  be  taken.  I  have  heretofore  been  of 
the  opinion  that  we  ought  to  have  three  roads  :  one  in 
the  centre,  one  in  the  extreme  south,  and  one  in  the 
extreme  north.  ...  If  there  is  to  be  but  one  the 
central  one  should  be  taken." 

1  As  was  the  case  with  the  Oregon  question,  the  Mexican  war,  and  all 
other  great  matters,  the  question  of  sectional  advantages  appeared, 


CHAPTER  XII 

INLAND   WATERWAYS 

SENATOR  DOUGLAS  was  one  of  the  foremost  to 
give  support  to  practical  and  necessary  internal 
improvements  of  all  kinds,  especially  water  navi 
gation.     He  was  the  first  statesman  who  showed  that 
in  the  river  and  harbor  appropriations  inland  naviga 
tion  had  not  received  its  proper  and  just  recognition. 
He  frequently  expressed   himself  in  the   Senate  upon 
this  matter,  but  never  so  ably  as  in  a  letter  to  his  friend, 
Governor  Mattison  of  Illinois,  in  the  course  of  which  he 
said : 

"  I  repeat  that  the  policy  has  proved  worse  than  a 
failure.  If  we  expect  to  provide  facilities  and  securities 
for  our  navigation  interests,  we  must  adopt  a  system 
commensurate  with  our  wants  —  one  that  will  be  just 
and  equal  in  its  operations  upon  lake,  river,  and  ocean, 
wherever  the  water  is  navigable,  fresh  or  salt,  tide  or  no 
tide ;  a  system  which  will  not  depend  for  its  success 
upon  the  dubious  and  fluctuating  issues  of  political  cam 
paigns  and  Congressional  combination  —  one  which  will 
be  certain,  uniform,  and  unvarying  in  its  results." 


CHAPTER  XIII 

THE    CLAYTON-BULWER  TREATY 

NONE  of  the  great  statesmen  of  his  day  took  a 
greater  interest  in  our  foreign  policy  than  did 
Senator  Douglas.  He  hoped  to  see  the  time 
when  the  whole  of  North  America  would  be  brought 
under  the  beneficent  influences  of  our  institutions  and 
rest  beneath  the  folds  of  our  flag.  He  would  never 
consent  to  the  adoption  of  a  policy  that  would  limit  the 
boundaries  or  paramount  influence  of  the  United  States 
upon  this  hemisphere. 

In  regard  to  the  possibilities  of  acquisition  by  the 
United  States,  he  had  the  broadest  views  of  all  Ameri 
can  statesmen  up  to  his  day. 

We  have  seen  what  his  position  was  in  the  Oregon 
controversy  —  how  he  believed  in  the  "  fifty-four  forty 
or  fight"  doctrine  —  to  fight  Great  Britain  unless  she 
would  accede  to  our  terms,  which  would  have  given  us 
the  whole  Pacific  coast  clear  up  to  Alaska.  We  have 
seen  how  vigorously  he  supported  a  war  policy  against 
Mexico  through  which  we  acquired  California,  Arizona, 
and  New  Mexico. 

In  none  of  his  utterances  did  Senator  Douglas  pro 
claim  his  views  more  fully  than  when  assailing  the 
Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty. 

This  treaty  with  England  among  other  things  pledged 


THE  CLAYTON-BULWER  TREATY  29 

both  nations  neither  "  ever  to  buy,  annex,  colonize,  or 
acquire,  or  erect  fortifications  upon,  any  portion  of  Cen 
tral  America."  Senator  Douglas  with  all  his  might 
opposed  the  idea  of  our  Government  entering  into  such 
an  obligation.  He  was  not  then  urging  the  acquisition 
of  more  territory,  but  he  regarded  it  as  humiliating  for 
us  to  make  such  a  pledge.  He  predicted  that  the  time 
would  come  when  we  should  be  embarrassed  by  such  a 
pledge. 


CHAPTER  XIV 

AN  ISTHMIAN   CANAL 

ALEXANDER  VON  HUMBOLDT,  the  great  Ger 
man  scientist  and  explorer,  became  so  interested 
in  the  matter  of  building  a  ship  canal  to  connect 
the  two  oceans  that  he  planned  and  mapped  out  six  dif 
ferent  routes   across   the   Isthmus.     So  early  as  1827 
Goethe,  the  poet  and  scientist,  commenting  upon  Hum- 
boldt's  theories,  said : 

"  If  they  succeed  in  cutting  such  a  canal  that  ships 
of  any  burden  and  size  can  be  navigated  through  it, 
from  the  Mexican  Gulf  to  the  Pacific  Ocean,  innumer 
able  benefits  will  result  to  the  benefit  of  the  whole 
human  race,  civilized  and  uncivilized.  But  I  should 
wonder  if  the  United  States  were  to  let  an  opportunity 
escape  of  getting  such  a  work  into  their  own  hands.'7 
After  giving  most  conclusive  arguments  showing  how 
important  it  was  to  us  for  the  United  States  to  build 
and  control  such  a  canal,  Goethe  continued,  "  I,  there 
fore,  repeat  that  it  is  absolutely  indispensable  for  the 
United  States  to  effect  a  passage  from  the  Mexican  Gulf 
to  the  Pacific  Ocean,  and  I  am  certain  that  they  will 
do  it." 

Senator  Douglas  realized  the  importance  to  our 
Government  of  being  in  a  position  not  merely  to  build 
but  to  control  such  a  canal  as  was  proposed  a  half 


Jy,xd 


BAH  ON  VON  HUMBOLDT 


AN  ISTHMIAN  CANAL  31 

a  century  before  our  Government  undertook  the  great 
work,  and  upon  this  question  he  was  far  in  advance  of 
all  other  American  statesmen ;  and,  because  of  this,  he 
was  unwilling  to  bind  us  to  a  treaty  stipulation  that 
might  prevent  or  embarrass  us  in  entering  upon  the 
great  enterprise. 

f  His  argument  against  the  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty  was, 
that  it  would  hinder  or  embarrass  us,  should  we  enter 
upon  the  work  of  building  an  Isthmian  canal.  Always 
alert  to  the  possibilities  of  American  enterprise,  with 
prophetic  vision  Senator  Douglas  exclaimed  in  his 
speech  before  the  Senate  in  opposition  to  the  Clayton- 
Bulwer  Treaty : 

"What  is  the  use  of  your  guarantee  that  we  will 
never  erect  any  fortifications  in  Central  America,  never 
annex,  occupy,  nor  colonize  any  portion  of  that  country  ? 
How  do  you  know  that  you  can  avoid  doing  it  ?  If  you 
make  the  canal,  I  ask  you  if  American  citizens  will  not 
settle  along  its  line;  whether  they  will  not  build  up 
towns  at  each  terminus ;  whether  they  will  not  spread 
over  that  country  and  convert  it  into  an  American  State ; 
whether  American  principles  and  American  institutions 
will  not  be  firmly  planted  there.  And  I  ask  you 
how  many  years  you  think  will  pass  away  before  you 
will  find  the  same  necessity  to  extend  your  laws  over 
your  own  kindred  that  you  found  in  the  case  of  Texas  ? 
How  long  will  it  be  before  that  day  arrives  ?  It  may 
not  occur  in  the  Senator's  day  nor  in  mine,  but,  so 
certain  as  this  Republic  exists,  so  certain  as  we  remain 
a  united  people,  so  certain  as  the  laws  of  progress,  which 
have  raised  us  from  a  mere  handful  to  a  mighty  nation, 


32  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 

shall  continue  to  govern  our  action,  just  so  certain  are 
these  events  to  be  worked  out,  and  you  will  be  com 
pelled  to  extend  your  protection  in  that  direction. 

"  Sir,  I  am  not  desirous  of  hastening  the  day.  I  am 
not  impatient  of  the  time  when  it  shall  be  realized.  I  do 
not  wish  to  give  any  additional  impulse  to  our  progress. 
We  are  going  fast  enough.  But  I  wish  our  policy,  our 
laws,  our  institutions,  should  keep  up  with  the  advance 
in  science,  in  the  mechanic  arts,  in  agriculture,  and  in 
everything  that  tends  to  make  us  a  great  and  powerful 
nation.'  Let  us  look  the  future  in  the  face,  and  let  us 
prepare  to  meet  that  which  cannot  be  avoided.  Hence 
I  was  unwilling  to  adopt  that  clause  in  the  treaty  guar 
anteeing  that  neither  party  would  ever  ( annex,  colo 
nize,  or  occupy  any  portion  of  Central  America.' ' 

Before  we,  under  the  late  administration,  could  enter 
into  negotiations  or  turn  a  shovel  in  the  direction  of 
building  the  Panama  Canal,  that  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty, 
against  the  blighting  effect  of  which  the  great  Senator 
a  half-century  ago  warned  his  countrymen,  —  the 
Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty,  the  ratification  of  which  he 
opposed  with  all  his  might,  had  to  be  abrogated. 

The  right  and  duty  of  the  United  States  to  exercise 
paramount  authority  over  an  Isthmian  canal  were 
entirely  inharmonious  with  the  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty 
and  led  to  many  controversies  with  Great  Britain,  some 
of  them  serious  and  threatening;  but  the  demands 
of  the  United  States,  made  so  long  ago  by  Senator 
Douglas,  which  were  foretold  by  Goethe,  were  finally 
conceded.  With  tact  and  courage  and  ability  and  perse 
verance,  our  greatest  Secretary  of  State,  John  Hay,  a 


JOHN  HAY 


AN  ISTHMIAN  CANAL  33 

student  and  disciple  of  both  Lincoln  and  Douglas,  suc 
ceeded  in  negotiating  a  treaty  with  Great  Britain  abro 
gating  the  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty,  and  then  the  United 
States  was  free  to  build  and  control  the  Panama  canal. 
This  treaty  is  known  as  the  Hay-Pauncefote  Treaty. 


CHAPTER  XV 

DOUGLAS   WOULD   NOT  LIMIT   THE  BOUNDAEIES  OF 
THE   REPUBLIC 

WE  found    Senator   Douglas  proclaiming   such 
sentiments  as : 

"  You  may  make  as  many  treaties  as  you 
please  to  fetter  the  limbs  of  this  great  Republic,  and  she 
will  burst  them  all  from  her,  and  her  course  will  be 
onward  to  a  limit  which  I  will  not  venture  to  describe. 

"  Fifty  years  ago  the  question  was  being  debated  in 
this  Senate  whether  it  was  wise  or  not  to  acquire  any 
territory  on  the  west  bank  of  the  Mississippi,  and  it 
was  then  contended  that  we  could  never  with  safety 
extend  beyond  that  river.  It  was  at  that  time  seriously 
considered  whether  the  Alleghany  Mountains  should  not 
be  the  barrier  beyond  which  we  should  never  pass. 
After  we  had  acquired  Louisiana  and  Florida,  more 
liberal  views  began  to  prevail,  and  it  was  thought  that 
perhaps  we  might  venture  to  establish  one  tier  of  States 
west  of  the  Mississippi.  ...  We  burst  through  and 
passed  the  Rocky  Mountains  and  were  only  arrested  by 
the  waters  of  the  Pacific.  Who  shall  now  say  that  we 
will  not  be  compelled  to  turn  to  the  north  or  to  the 
south  for  an  outlet  ?  .  .  . 

"It  is  our  destiny  to  have  Cuba,  and  it  is  folly  to 
debate  the  question.  It  naturally  belongs  to  the  Amer- 


WOULD  NOT  LIMIT  BOUNDARIES  OF  REPUBLIC        35 

lean  continent.  It  guards  the  mouth  of  the  Mississippi 
River  which  is  the  heart  of  the  American  continent  and 
the  body  of  the  American  nation.  Its  acquisition  is 
a  matter  of  time  only.  Our  Government  should  adopt 
the  policy  of  receiving  Cuba  as  soon  as  a  fair  and  just 
opportunity  shall  be  presented,  whether  that  opportu 
nity  shall  occur  next  year  or  the  year  after ;  whenever 
the  occasion  arises  and  presents  itself,  it  should  be 
embraced. 

"  The  same  is  true  of  Central  America  and  of  Mexico. 
It  will  not  do  to  say  we  have  territory  enough.  When 
the  Constitution  was  formed  there  was  enough,  yet  in  a 
few  years  afterward  we  needed  more.  We  acquired 
Louisiana  and  Florida,  Texas  and  California,  just  as  the 
increase  of  our  population  and  our  interests  demanded. 
When  in  1850  the  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty  was  sent 
to  the  Senate  for  ratification,  I  fought  it  to  the  end. 
They  then  asked  what  I  wanted  with  Central  America. 
I  told  them  I  did  not  want  it  then,  but  the  time  would 
come  when  we  must  have  it.  They  then  asked  what 
my  objection  to  the  treaty  was.  I  told  them  I 
objected  to  that,  among  other  clauses,  which  said  that 
neither  Great  Britain  nor  the  United  States  should  ever 
buy,  annex,  colonize,  or  acquire  any  portion  of  Central 
America.  I  said  that  I  would  never  consent  to  a 
treaty  with  any  foreign  power  pledging  ourselves  not 
to  do  in  the  future  whatever  interest  or  necessity  might 
compel  us  to  do.'  I  was  then  told  by  veteran  Senators, 
as  my  distinguished  friend  well  knows  [looking  at  Mr. 
Soule],  that  Central  America  was  so  far  off  we  should 
never  want  it.  I  told  them  then,  '  Yes,  a  good  way  off  — 


36  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 

half  way  to  California  and  on  the  direct  road  to  it.'  I 
said  it  was  our  right  and  duty  to  open  all  the  highways 
between  the  Atlantic  and  the  Gulf  States  and  our  pos 
sessions  on  the  Pacific,  and  that  I  would  enter  into 
no  treaty  with  Great  Britain  or  any  other  government 
concerning  the  affairs  of  the  American  continent. 

"Here,  without  a  breach  of  confidence,  I  may  be 
permitted  to  state  a  conversation  which  took  place  at 
that  time  between  myself  and  the  British  Minister,  Sir 
Henry  Bulwer,  on  that  point. 

"  He  took  occasion  to  remonstrate  with  me,  that  my 
position  with  regard  to  the  treaty  was  unjust  and  un 
tenable;  that  the  treaty  was  fair,  because  it  was  re 
ciprocal  —  because  it  pledged  that  neither  Great  Britain 
nor  the  United  States  should  ever  purchase,  colonize,  or 
acquire  any  territory  in  Central  America. 

"  I  told  him  that  it  would  be  fair  if  they  would  add 
one  word  to  the  treaty  so  that  it  would  read  that  neither 
Great  Britain  nor  the  United  States  should  ever  occupy 
or  hold  dominion  over  Central  America  or  Asia.  '  But/ 
he  said,  'you  have  no  interests  in  Asia.'  'No,'  an 
swered  I,  '  and  you  have  none  in  Central  America.' 

" '  But/  said  he,  c  you  can  never  establish  any  rights 
in  Asia.'  '  No/  said  I,  '  and  we  don't  mean  that 
you  shall  ever  establish  any  in  America.'  I  told  him 
it  would  be  as  respectful  for  us  to  ask  that  pledge  in 
reference  to  Asia  as  it  was  for  Great  Britain  to  ask  it 
from  us  in  reference  to  Central  America.  .  .  . 

"  I  am  in  favor  of  expansion  as  far  as  is  consistent 
with  our  interest  and  the  increase  and  development  of 
our  population  and  resources.  .  .  .  The  more  degrees  of 


WOULD  NOT  LIMIT  BOUNDARIES  OF  REPUBLIC        37 

latitude  and  longitude  beneath  our  Constitution  the 
better.  ...  A  young  nation  with  all  her  freshness, 
vigor,  and  youth  desires  no  limits  fixed  to  her  great 
ness,  no  boundaries  to  her  future  growth." 

It  was  on  account  of  his  having  such  broad  and 
statesmanlike  views,  and  because  he  was  able  to  vindi 
cate  them  with  such  power,  that  his  fame  came  to  be, 
as  was  said  by  his  greatest  rival,  "world  wide." 


CHAPTER  XVI 

THE   COMPROMISE  MEASURES   OF   1850 

FEW  now  realize  how  prominent  Senator  Douglas 
was  in  formulating  and  carrying  through  the 
Compromise  Measures  of  1850. 

After  years  of  the  most  violent  and  acrimonious 
sectional  strife,  culminating  in  a  most  serious  and  most 
perilous  crisis,  in  1850  the  greatest  of  our  statesmen 
assembled  in  Congress  at  Washington,  and  addressed 
themselves  to  the  task  of  averting  the  calamity  of  civil 
war  that  seemed  to  be  imminent.  So  appalling  was 
the  crisis  that  patriotic  statesmen  feared  that  inter 
necine  war  was  impending. 

Henry  Clay  had  retired  from  public  life  to  his  home 
in  Kentucky,  expecting,  during  his  few  remaining  years, 
to  enjoy  the  sweets  of  repose,  which  he  had  richly  earned 
by  long  and  faithful  and  patriotic  service  to  his  country. 
Known  as  the  "  Sage  of  Ashland,"  and  finally  as  the 
"  Great  Pacificator/'  he  left  his  retreat  and  resumed  his 
seat  in  the  Senate  and  was  made  the  leader  of  the 
movement  to  effect  a  compromise. 

After  a  protracted  session  of  nearly  ten  months  the 
legislation  known  as  The  Compromise  Measures  of 
1850  was  accomplished. 

Those  measures  were : 


THE  COMPROMISE  MEASURES  OF   1850  39 

^1.    The  admission  of  California  into  the  Union  as  a  free 
State. 

2.  The  creation  of  a  Territorial  government  for  Utah. 

3.  The   creation   of   a   Territorial   government   for   New 
Mexico. 

4.  The  adjustment  of  the  disputed  boundary  of  Texas. 

5.  The   abolition   of   the   slave   trade   in  the  District  of 
Columbia. 

6.  The  Fugitive  Slave  Law. 

Senator  Douglas  was  the  author  of  three  of  these  six    ^ 
measures,  —  the  bill  to  admit  California  into  the  Union 
as  a  free  State  ;  the  creation  of  a  Territorial  government 
for  Utah ;  the  creation  of  a  Territorial  government  for 
New  Mexico. 

On  the  twenty-third  of  October,  1850,  Senator 
Douglas  made  a  speech  in  Chicago  before  his  con 
stituents  on  the  Compromise  Measures  of  1850,  which 
is  a  complete  and  exhaustive  exposition  of  those 
measures. 

Senator  Douglas  had  now,  upon  the  adoption  of  the 
Compromise  Measures  of  1850,  served  honorably  in  the 
House,  had  served  a  full  term  in  the  Senate,  and  was 
nearly  half  through  his  second  term.  He  had,  as  has 
been  shown,  from  the  time  he  was  firmly  established  in 
his  seat  in  Congress,  taken  an  active  and  usually  a 
prominent  part  in  the  measures  that  had  come  before 
the  country.  He  was  influential  in  his  party  in  every  / 
State  of  the  Union.  In  his  own  State  he  controlled 
every  Federal  office ;  and  not  only  that,  through  his 
friends  he  controlled  most  of  the  State  and  county 
offices.  He  had  met  in  debate  and  worsted  nearly 
every  man  of  the  Whig  party,  and  had,  by  the  force  of 


40  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 

his  intellect  and  indomitable  will,  risen  gradually  to  the 
supreme  leadership  in  the  Democratic  party,  which 
dominated  the  country.  Young  as  he  was,  —  only 
forty-one,  —  he  was  prominently  put  forward  for  the 
presidency. 


CHAPTER  XVII 
A  PORTRAYAL   OF   SENATOR   DOUGLAS 

A  CORRESPONDENT  of  TJie  New  York  Times 
gave  at  that  time  a  description  of  him  as 
follows : 

"  The  '  Little  Giant/  as  he  has  been  well  styled,  is 
seen  to  advantage  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate.  He  is  not 
above  the  middle  height;  but  the  easy  and  natural 
dignity  of  his  manner  stamps  him  at  once  as  one  born 
to  command.  His  massive  head  rivets  undivided  atten 
tion.  It  is  a  head  of  the  antique,  with  something  of 
the  infinite  in  its  expression  of  power ;  a  head  difficult 
to  describe,  but  better  worth  description  than  any  other 
in  the  country.  Mr.  Douglas  has  a  brow  of  unusual 
size,  covered  with  heavy  masses  of  dark-brown  hair, 
now  beginning  to  be  sprinkled  with  silver.  His  fore 
head  is  high,  open,  and  splendidly  developed,  based  on 
dark,  thick  eyebrows  of  great  width.  His  eyes,  large 
and  deeply  set,  are  of  the  darkest  and  most  brilliant 
hue.  The  mouth  is  cleanly  cut,  finely  arched,  but  with 
something  of  bitter,  sad  expression.  The  chin  is  square 
and  vigorous,  and  is  full  of  eddying  dimples  —  the 
muscles  and  nerves  showing  great  mobility,  and  every 
thought  having  some  external  reflection  in  the  sensitive 
and  expressive  features.  Add  now  a  rich,  dark  com 
plexion,  clear  and  healthy ;  smoothly-shaven  cheeks 


42  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

and  handsome  throat;  small,  white  ears;  eyes  which 
shoot  out  electric  fires ;  small,  white  hands ;  small  feet ; 
a  full  chest  and  broad  shoulders  ;  and  with  these  points 
doubly  blended  together,  we  have  a  picture  of  the 
Little  Giant." 

The  author  of  this  work  remembers  Senator  Douglas 
as  what  the  politicians  of  to-day  would  call  a  good 
mixer.  There  was  no  company  in  which  he  could  not 
be  a  congenial  companion.  In  company  of  the  great  at 
Washington  and  in  the  cabin  of  the  frontier,  with  grave 
senators,  with  cabinet  officials,  and  with  the  plain  peo 
ple  —  farmers  and  mechanics  and  laboring  men  —  he 
was  equally  at  home.  He  was  genial  and  cordial,  inter 
ested  in  everything  that  concerned  those  with  whom  he 
came  in  contact,  to  such  a  degree  as  to  make  them  feel 
that  he  was  one  of  them. 

In  the  early  days  when  the  principal  gatherings  were 
at  raisings  of  buildings,  corn-huskings,  nutting  parties, 
horse-races,  wrestling  bouts,  with  dancing  to  the  melo 
dious  strains  of  a  fiddle  in  the  evening,  he  entered  into 
the  sports  and  was  a  "  Hail,  fellow  !  well  met !  "  He 
had  a  happy  faculty  of  remembering  names  and  faces ; 
but,  beyond  this,  he  instinctively  at  once  acquired  some 
knowledge  of  the  relations  and  surroundings  and  tastes 
of  those  about  him,  and  was  ready  to  talk  of  matters  in 
which  they  were  interested.  When  presiding  as  a  judge 
on  the  bench  he  would  frequently,  while  the  lawyers 
were  addressing  the  jury,  go  down  among  the  specta 
tors  and  seat  himself  beside  an  old  friend  and  visit  with 
him,  all  the  time  keeping  cognizance  of  what  was  going 
on,  ready  to  respond  when  his  attention  to  the  case  at 


A  PORTRAYAL  OF  SENATOR  DOUGLAS  43 

bar  was  required,  maintaining  all  the  time  the  most 
perfect  order.  He  has  been  seen  at  Knoxville,  when 
the  court  room  was  crowded,  to  seat  himself  upon  the 
knee  of  old  Governor  McMurtry  and,  with  his  arm  upon 
his  shoulder,  talk  with  him  for  a  considerable  time, 
which,  diminutive  as  was  his  stature,  and  great  as  was 
that  of  the  Governor,  did  not  seem  incongruous.1 

His  voice,  while  deep  and  strong,  was  melodious  and 
sympathetic,  and  his  ways  most  winning.  He  knew 
who  were  his  friends,  and  confided  in  them.  In  all  his 
public  career  he  never  forgot  a  friend,  and  never  failed 
to  serve  him  in  an  emergency  if  within  his  power.  His 
friends  realized  this,  and  in  turn  gave  him  similar  confi 
dence  and  support.  He  gained  confidence  by  giving 
confidence.  In  his  conversation  this  confidence  was  an 
important  characteristic.  It  would  seem  that  you  were 
especially  favored.  He  would  say,  "  I  can  tell  you  "  ; 
" I  know  that  I  can  say  to  you  "  ;  "I  have  no  hesitation 
in  confiding  in  you  "  ;  "I  want  you  to  know,"  etc.,  and 
his  confidence  was  never  betrayed. 

Genial  as  he  was,  cordial  as  he  was,  entering  into  and 
enjoying  all  the  social  relations  and  sports  of  those 
early  days,  he  was  always  dignified.  While  he  was 
amused  at  the  vagaries  and  the  excesses  of  those  who 
took  part  in  the  social  gatherings  of  the  time,  and  their 

1  It  used  to  be  related  that  while  presiding  on  the  bench  at  Knoxville, 
Knox  County,  the  news  came  of  his  nomination  for  Congress  to  run 
against  Orville  H.  Browning,  whom  he  defeated.  This  was  his  first  elec 
tion  to  the  Lower  House,  The  news  so  stirred  the  people  that  he  was 
obliged  to  adjourn  court,  and  the  whole  assemblage,  judge  and  jury, 
lawyers  and  spectators,  paraded  around  the  public  square  singing, 
"  The  old  black  bull  came  down  the  meadow." 


44  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 

extravagant  demonstrations,  and  enjoyed  them,  he  him 
self  never  gave  way  to  them  to  such  a  degree  as  to  be  a 
leader  in  them.  He  maintained  such  reserve  as  was 
becoming  in  one  of  such  character  and  attainments. 
He  would  enjoy  and  laugh  at  stories,  but  there  is  no 
record  of  his  ever  having  told  one.  He  appreciated  and 
enjoyed  a  pun,  but  he  never  made  one. 

In  this  regard  he  was  the  antithesis  of  Mr.  Lincoln. 
When  Senator  Douglas  made  his  first  speech  in  Chicago 
in  opening  the  great  campaign  in  which  Lincoln  was 
pitted  against  him,  Mr.  Lincoln  was  present  and  was 
invited  to  sit  on  the  platform.  On  the  evening  before, 
the  common  council  of  Chicago  had  passed  a  resolution 
denouncing  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  and  Douglas  called 
the  council  to  account  for  attempting  to  reverse  and 
override  a  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States,  saying  that  it  reminded  him  of  the  statement  of 
an  old  friend  who  used  to  declare  that  if  you  wish  to 
get  justice  in  a  case  you  should  take  it  to  the  Supreme 
Court  of  Illinois,  and  from  that  court  take  an  appeal  to 
a  Justice  of  the  Peace.  Lincoln's  voice  was  heard  from 
behind  the  speaker,  sotto  voce,  calling  "  Judge !  Judge ! 
Judge !  "  The  Senator  paused  and  turned  around,  and 
Lincoln  said,  "  Judge,  that  was  when  you  were  on  the 
Illinois  Supreme  bench."  So  far  from  being  put  out 
by  the  interruption  Judge  Douglas  repeated  the  joke 
of  his  "friend  Lincoln"  to  the  audience. 

The  nearest  the  Senator  came  to  making  a  joke  that 
appears  in  any  of  his  speeches  was  in  the  joint  debate 
at  Galesburg.  Mr.  Lincoln  had  said  that  in  the 
campaign  the  Judge  always  made  the  same  speech. 


ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 


A  PORTRAYAL  OF  SENATOR  DOUGLAS       45 

There  was  considerable  reason  for  this,  for  the  Judge 
always  repeated  and  elaborated  and  plumed  himself 
upon  the  popular  sovereignty  clause  in  his  Nebraska  bill. 
The  statement  of  Mr.  Lincoln  evoked  laughter  and  ap 
plause  and  made  quite  an  impression  upon  the  audience. 
Douglas  replied  that  he  wished  he  could  say  the  same 
thing  of  Mr.  Lincoln.  That  the  difficulty  with  Mr. 
Lincoln  was  that  in  Northern  Illinois,  among  the  anti- 
slavery  people,  he  always  made  a,  free  soil  speech,  but  in 
Southern  Illinois  where  abolitionism  was  unpopular 
he  always  made  an  old-line  Whig  speech.  There  was 
sufficient  truth  in  this  to  make  the  Senator's  declaration 
more  of  an  argument  than  a  joke. 

In  1854,  four  years  before  the  great  debates,  the 
writer  heard  a  joint  debate  between  the  Senator  and  a 
prominent  anti-slavery  local  orator.  It  was  the  Sen 
ator's  appointment  for  a  Democratic  meeting,  but  the 
Kepublicans  put  forward  their  champion,  who  chal 
lenged  him  for  a  joint  debate,  which,  as  was  his  custom, 
he  at  once  accepted.  The  principal  subject  of  discussion 
was  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise.  The  Senator 
was  called  to  account  for  inconsistency,  in  himself  break 
ing  it  down  after  declaring  that  the  Missouri  Compro 
mise  was  "canonized  in  the  hearts  of  the  people,  and 
no  ruthless  hand  would  ever  dare  to  disturb  it."  The 
attack  was  virulent  and  bitter.  Douglas's  only  reply 
to  this  was  by  pointing  his  finger  at  his  assailant  and 
exclaiming,  "  There  is  an  old  adage  that  wise  men 
change  their  opinions,  but  fools  never  do." 

In  the  bitterness  of  political  acrimony  it  was  fre 
quently  stated  that  the  Senator  was  too  much  addicted 


46  STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS 

to  drink.  It  cannot  be  denied  that,  at  a  time  when  ex 
cessive  conviviality  among  politicians,  especially  among 
Democratic  politicians,  was  the  rule  rather  than  the 
exception,  he  joined  in  the  conviviality  of  his  friends ; 
but  there  is  no  authenticated  instance  of  his  having 
drunk  to  such  excess  as  to  warrant  such  an  accusation. 
The  writer  saw  him  many  times  on  public  occasions 
when  he  spoke,  and  at  social  gatherings,  and  never  saw 
any  reason  for  such  an  accusation. 

He  smoked  incessantly.  Even  on  the  platform  dur 
ing  the  great  debates,  he  smoked  while  Mr.  Lincoln 
was  speaking. 

When  the  writer  first  knew  the  Senator,  he  had 
already  in  physical  development  become  a  little  bit 
corpulent.  Not  too  much  so.  His  friends  who  had 
known  him  for  a  considerable  time,  said  that,  slender 
as  he  was  when  younger,  this  was  an  improvement. 
He  had  reached  what  the  French  call  embonpoint. 
This  tendency  increased  as  he  grew  older,  and,  had 
he  lived  to  oid  age,  might  have  gone  to  excess. 

In  dress  he  was,  after  he  attained  high  position,  al 
most  "  the  glass  of  fashion,"  and  certainly  he  was  "  the 
mould  of  form."  Small  as  he  was  in  stature,  it  was 
seldom  one  saw  so  perfect  a  figure.  There  never  was  a 
greater  contrast  in  physical  peculiarities  than  that  pre 
sented  by  him  and  Mr.  Lincoln. 

In  an  emergency  he  immediately  took  in  the  situa 
tion  and  acted  with  promptness.  While  other  men  were 
considering,  he  would  meet  the  crisis.  Once,  during 
what  were  called  in  financial  circles  "  wild-cat  "  times, 
there  was  a  run  upon  a  bank  in  Chicago,  owned  and 


A  PORTRAYAL  OF  SENATOR  DOUGLAS  47 

conducted  by  his  personal  and  political  friends.  The 
money  was  loaned  out  and  could  not  be  called  in  in 
time  to  meet  the  demands  of  the  panic-stricken  people 
who  filled  the  street  in  front  of  the  bank,  crowding  up 
to  draw  out  their  deposits.  The  currency  on  hand  be 
came  almost  exhausted,  and  the  order  was  about  to  be 
given  to  close  the  doors,  when  a  carriage  dashed  up  a 
side  street  and  Senator  Douglas  appeared  at  a  back 
door.  He  hastened  in  and  placed  a  large  amount  of 
currency,  eighty  thousand  dollars,  as  was  said,  upon 
the  table  and  the  bank  was  able  to  tide  over  the  emer 
gency.  He  had  seen  the  surging  crowd  in  the  street, 
and,  at  once  appreciating  the  situation,  hastened  to  the 
bank  where  he  deposited,  and  with  his  own  money 
and  his  credit,  which  he  used  to  the  extreme  limit,  he 
was  able  to  save  his  friends. 

The  Senator  was  particularly  attentive  and  considerate 
to  young  men.  Some  days  after  the  first  inauguration 
of  President  Lincoln,  the  writer,  then  quite  a  young 
man,  approached  him  in  the  Senate  Chamber  just  be 
fore  the  session  of  the  day  opened.  The  Senator 
greeted  him  cordially,  and,  finding  he  was  from  Gales- 
burg,  inquired  about  his  old  friends  in  Knox  County, 
Governor  McMurtry,  Judge  Lanphere,  Squire  Barnett, 
and  others.  While  they  were  thus  engaged  in  conver 
sation  the  Senate  was  called  to  order,  and  an  usher 
appeared  and  held  up  a  card  before  the  young  man 
upon  which  was  printed  in  large  type  the  list  of  per 
sonages  permitted  upon  the  floor  of  the  Senate  :  "  Gover 
nors  of  States,  Ex-Senators,  members  of  the  other  House, 
judges  of  the  Supreme  Court,"  etc.  The  usher  asked 


48  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

the  young  man,  "Do  you,  sir,  belong  to  that  list?" 
Whereupon  Senator  Douglas  with  the  utmost  gravity 
and  in  a  tone  of  surprise  asked,  "  Is  it  possible  you  do 
not  know  this  gentleman  ?  "  "  No,  Senator,"  replied 
the  man  obsequiously,  "  I  have  not  the  honor,  Senator." 
"  He  is  the  Governor  of  Illinois,  the  Governor  of  my  own 
State,"  replied  the  Senator.  "  I  beg  pardon,  Senator," 
replied  the  man,  withdrawing,  with  a  broad  grin,  "  I 
beg  pardon,  Senator.  "  The  conversation  continued  for 
some  moments  when  the  young  "  Governor  of  Illinois  " 
withdrew,  and  the  Senator  went  to  his  seat. 


CHAPTER  XVIII 

V- 

SENATOR  DOUGLAS'S   FAMILY 

SENATOR  DOUGLAS  married,  April  7,  1847, 
Martha,  daughter  of  Colonel  Robert  Martin  of 
Rockingham  County,  North  Carolina,  by  whom  he 
had  children.  The  eldest,  Judge  Robert  Martin  Douglas, 
is  now  a  resident  of  North  Carolina.  He  has  held  high 
position  on  the  bench  and  is  a  prominent  and  respected 
citizen  of  that  State.  The  second  son,  Stephen  A. 
Douglas,  Jr.,  was  engaged  for  many  years  in  the  prac 
tice  of  the  law  in  Chicago.  He  was  frequently  called 
upon  to  address  public  meetings ;  and  in  the  Summer  of 
1908,  when  the  fiftieth  anniversary  of  the  Lincoln- 
Douglas  debates  was  celebrated  throughout  Illinois  he 
made  several  engagements  to  speak ;  and  he  did  speak 
on  one  or  two  occasions,  but  died  while  the  celebrations 
were  going  on. 

Mrs.  Douglas  died  on  the  nineteenth  of  January, 
1853.  On  the  twentieth  of  November,  1856,  Senator 
Douglas  married  again.  His  second  wife,  Miss  Adele 
Cutts,  was  the  daughter  of  Mr.  James  Madison  Cutts 
of  Washington.  She  survived  him  and  some  years 
after  his  death  married  General  Robert  Williams  of 
the  United  States  Army. 


CHAPTER  XIX 

THE   UNIVERSITY   OF   CHICAGO 

JOHN  D.  ROCKEFELLER  founded  the  University 
of  Chicago,  and  through  his  munificence  it  has 
become  one  of  the  wealthiest  and  most  prosperous 
institutions  of  learning  in  the  United  States. 

Stephen  A.  Douglas  conceived  the  idea  of  establishing 
such  an  institution,  and  the  glory  of  the  inception  of 
the  great  enterprise  must  be  attributed  to  him. 

Senator  Douglas  was  one  of  the  incorporators  of  the 
University  of  Chicago.  In  1856  he  gave  the  site  of 
about  ten  acres  for  the  institution  at  Thirty-fourth  Street 
and  Cottage  Grove  Avenue  in  Chicago,  now  worth  mil 
lions.  He  was  a  member  of  the  Board  of  Trustees  dur 
ing  all  his  life  afterwards,  and  President  of  the  board. 

When  the  new  University  of  Chicago  was  established, 
in  1890,  although  it  had  no  connection  with  the  former 
University  it  assumed  its  name.  The  old  University 
gave  its  consent  to  this  and  changed  its  corporate  name 
to  "The  Old  University,"  to  allow  this  to  be  done. 
Because  the  University  of  Chicago  succeeded  the  old 
University  and  took  its  name,  and  continued  its  work 
under  the  same  denominational  auspices,  this  new  Uni 
versity  of  Chicago  adopted  the  alumni  of  the  Old 
University  as  her  own  and  reenacted  their  degrees  so 
that  they  consider  themselves  her  alumni  and  generally 


JOHN  D.  ROCKEFELLER 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CHICAGO  51 

cooperate  with  her.  While  Senator  Douglas  had  no 
direct  connection  with  the  establishment  of  the  present 
University  of  Chicago,  he  was  an  essential  factor  in 
founding  the  first  university,  to  whose  name  and 
alumni  she  has  succeeded.  This  relation  has  been 
commemorated  by  a  bronze  tablet  of  Douglas,  showing 
his  bast,  on  the  walls  of  one  of  the  buildings  of  the 
University  of  Chicago. 

To  the  building  of  a  great  university  in  Chicago 
Senator  Douglas  devoted  much  of  his  thought  and 
energy  from  1856  to  the  close  of  his  illustrious  career. 
He  appreciated  the  value  of  learning  and  gave  a  large 
portion  of  his  property  to  place  within  the  reach  of  the 
young  of  Chicago  and  of  the  West  the  advantages  of 
higher  education.  In  the  midst  of  great  political  excite 
ment  at  a  time  when  in  the  political  arena  of  the  whole 
great  nation  he  was  the  central  figure,  midway  between 
his  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  and  the  great  de 
bates,  he  found  time  to  establish  what  he  hoped  and 
intended  should  be  a  great  university.  He  was  not  sat 
isfied  with  merely  establishing  such  an  institution,  but 
as  a  member  of  its  Board  of  Trust  and  in  other  ways  he 
contributed  to  its  success.  He  had  a  high  conception  of 
what  an  institution  so  situated  and  with  such  environ 
ment  should  be,  and  did  everything  in  his  power  to  bring 
it  up  to  such  a  standard  of  excellence  as  he  hoped  to  see 
it  attain.  Had  he  survived  to  the  allotted  years  of  man, 
no  doubt  much  that  he  hoped  for  would  have  been 
attained  by  the  institution  he  founded.  But  he  lived 
only  five  years  after  the  institution  he  founded  was  so 
established. 


52  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 

It  remained  for  wise,  brave,  able,  and  generous  men, 
after  the  lapse  of  thirty  years,  to  take  up  the  work 
Senator  Douglas  so  nobly  attempted,  and  carry  it  for 
ward  to  the  most  complete  and  triumphant  achievement 
that  has  ever  been  reached  by  any  institution  of  learn 
ing  in  so  brief  a  period.  In  the  University  of  Chicago, 
the  dream  of  the  great  Senator  has  been  far  more  than 
realized.  That  he  hoped  to  see  reared  a  great  univer 
sity  upon  the  foundation  he  laid  cannot  be  doubted,  but 
it  is  scarcely  within  the  bounds  of  possibility  that  he 
could  have  had  any  adequate  idea  of  the  success  to 
which  the  institution  has  attained.  Familiar  as  we  are 
with  its  history  and  appreciative  as  we  are  of  its  useful 
ness,  we  must  revere  the  memory  of  him  in  whose  heart 
and  brain  it  was  conceived,  and  by  whose  initiative  a 
University  of  Chicago  was  first  established. 

It  is  eminently  appropriate  that,  hard  by  the  great 
university;  mingling  with  the  soil  of  the  State  of  Illi 
nois  which  he  so  much  loved  and  upon  whose  citizens 
he  reflected  so  much  glory ;  in  the  midst  of  the  people 
of  the  imperial  city  of  Chicago,  whose  restless  energy 
and  enterprise  typify  the  activities  of  his  busy  and 
eventful  life,  and  to  whose  advancement  he  so  largely 
contributed;  beside  the  great  central  highway  created 
by  his  supreme  effort;  upon  the  shore  of  Lake 
Michigan  whose  waves  are  constantly  beating  a  mourn 
ful  requiem  of  the  mighty  dead,  —  it  is  eminently 
appropriate  that  there  should  forever  rest  the  mortal 
remains  of  the  great  Senator. 


DOUGLAS  MONUMENT 


CHAPTER   XX 
THE  MISTAKE  OF  SENATOR  DOUGLAS'S  LIFE 

NO  other  statesman  —  not  even  Henry  Clay  — 
ever  had  more  earnest  and  devoted  following. 
Not  only  among  the  great  masses  of  the  people 
of  his  party,  but  among  the  leading  statesmen  of  the 
country,  Senator  Douglas  had  a  commanding  influence. 
No  other  man  was  so  potential  in  the  Senate  ;  and  his 
influence  was  perhaps  as  great  in  the  Lower  House 
through  the  strong  men  on  the  floor  who  were  his 
friends  and  followers. 

It  was  not  then  considered  as  among  the  possibilities 
to  make  a  man  President  until  he  had,  through  length  of 
years  as  well  as  experience,  become  mature.  Douglas,  as 
has  been  said,  was  then  but  forty-one  years  old.  Still, 
notwithstanding  his  comparative  youth,  he  was  promi 
nently  put  forward  for  the  great  office.  That  he  would 
in  maturer  years,  as  conditions  were  then,  have  reached 
the  goal  of  every  ambitious  American  seemed  certain. 

In  a  retrospective  view  of  the  events  of  that  day,  of 
the  political  issues,  of  the  statesmen  of  the  time,  and  of 
the  attitude  and  standing  of  Douglas,  it  seems  to  the 
writer  (who  was  familiar  with  them)  inevitable  that, 
had  the  conditions  remained  as  they  then  were,  Senator 
Douglas  would  before  many  years  have  attained  to  the 
Presidency,  which  was  the  goal  of  his  ambition. 


64  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 

But  the  conditions  did  not  continue  as  they  then 
were.  There  came  a  new  departure,  a  complete  and 
entire  revolution  in  politics  and  in  the  political  situa 
tion;  and  Senator  Douglas,  the  man  of  all  men  most 
interested  in  keeping  matters  in  statu  quo,  being 
flushed  with  the  consciousness  of  strength  and  power, 
inaugurated  a  movement  that  entirely  changed  political 
conditions,  overturned  policies  that  had  been  in  vogue 
for  a  generation,  and  finally  resulted  in  driving  him 
and  his  party  from  the  control  of  the  Government. 

The  conflict  between  those  interested  in  human  slav 
ery  in  the  South  and  those  opposed  to  it  in  the  North 
reached  a  climax  so  long  ago  as  1820,  when  it  was 
proposed  to  admit  Missouri  into  the  Union  as  a  slave 
State.  As  was  the  case  in  later  years,  when,  after  a 
long  and  earnest  struggle  the  two  sections  seemed 
almost  ready  to  war  upon  each  other,  a  compromise 
was  effected.  That  compromise  of  1820,  known  as  the 
"  Missouri  Compromise,"  provided  for  the  admission  of 
Missouri  into  the  Union  as  a  slave  State  as  a  concession 
to  the  South  and  for  the  perpetual  inhibition  of  slavery 
north  of  the  parallel  of  thirty-six  degrees  and  thirty 
minutes.  This  parallel  from  that  day  forward  was 
called  the  "  Missouri  Compromise  line."  The  act  of 
Congress  provided  that  in  all  the  territory  then  owned 
by  the  United  States  which  lay  north  of  the  parallel  of 
thirty-six  degrees  and  thirty  minutes  "  slavery  and 
involuntary  servitude,  otherwise  than  in  the  punish 
ment  of  crime  whereof  the  party  shall  have  been  duly 
convicted,  shall  be  and  is  hereby  forever  prohibited." 
Curiously,  the  author  of  the  provision  creating  the 


THE  MISTAKE  OF  SENATOR  DOUGLAS'S  LIFE          55 

Missouri  Compromise  line  was  Jesse  B.  Thomas,  an 
Illinois  Senator. 

For  thirty-four  years  —  for  a  generation  —  that  Com 
promise  line  was,  for  all  the  region  of  the  United  States 
north  of  it  and  west  of  Missouri,  an  insurmountable 
barrier  against  human  slavery.  One  thing  which  had 
been  so  firmly  established  as  to  be  regarded  as  fixed 
and  permanent  was  the  Missouri  Compromise  line.  It 
was  regarded  by  the  people  as  sacred  and  binding, 
scarcely  less  so  than  the  Federal  Constitution.  It  was 
enacted  before  most  of  the  voters  of  that  day  were 
born.  Senator  Douglas  himself  when  that  line  was 
established  was  but  seven  years  old. 

He  himself  had  said  of  the  Missouri  Compromise 
line  :  "  It  is  canonized  in  the  hearts  of  the  American 
people,  and  no  ruthless  hand  will  ever  dare  to  disturb 
it "  ;  and,  after  we  acquired  a  vast  territory  from  Mex 
ico  he  wanted  to  extend  it  to  the  Pacific  Ocean. 

The  Senator  had  now  become  infatuated  with  the 
idea  of  taking  the  question  of  slavery  in  the  new  Terri 
tories  out  of  Congress,  and  leaving  it  to  the  people  of 
those  territories  which  must  soon  be  organized.  He 
had  come  to  believe  that  if  the  question  were  left  to  the 
Territories  there  would  be  no  more  slavery  agitation  in 
Congress,  and  that  there  would  be  no  conflict  except  in 
the  Territory  immediately  interested.  He  was  chairman 
of  the  Committee  on  Territories,  and  he  formulated  a 
bill  to  organize  Kansas  and  Nebraska ;  this  bill  declared 
that  "  it  is  not  the  intent  nor  meaning  of  this  act  either 
to  legislate  slavery  into  a  Territory  or  to  exclude  it 
therefrom,  but  to  leave  the  people  perfectly  free  to  form 


56  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

and  regulate  their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own 
way,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States." 

A  Southern  Senator,  Archibald  Dixon  of  Kentucky, 
introduced  a  bill  repealing  the  Missouri  Compromise 
line.  Both  Kansas  and  Nebraska  were  north  of  that 
line.  Slavery  could  not  lawfully  be  introduced  into 
those  Territories  without  abrogating  that  line,  and  so 
Senator  Douglas  was  persuaded  to  make  the  principle 
enunciated  in  Senator  Dixon' s  bill  repealing  the  Mis 
souri  Compromise  line  a  part  of  his  bill  known  as  the 
"Nebraska  bill." 

When  Senator  Dixon  proposed  his  measure  few  paid 
any  attention  to  it ;  but  when  Senator  Douglas  adopted 
it  there  arose  such  an  excitement  as  had  not  before 
been  known  since  the  organization  of  the  Government. 
The  people  had  come  to  realize  the  majesty  of  the 
power  of  the  great  Illinois  Senator,  and  they  had  reason 
to  fear  that  the  sacred  barrier  against  slavery  was 
doomed. 

"  What  ! "  exclaimed  men  from  ocean  to  ocean, 
"  repeal  the  Missouri  Compromise  !  You  might  as  well 
repeal  the  Constitution !  " 

The  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  had  precisely 
the  opposite  effect  from  that  which  Senator  Douglas 
and  his  friends  expected.  Instead  of  the  agitation  of 
the  slavery  question  being  removed  from  Congress,  it 
became  more  intense  in  Congress,  and  it  extended 
throughout  the  country. 

It  is  interesting  to  reflect  upon  what  might  and  upon 
what  might  not  have  been,  but  for  the  repeal  of  the 


THE  MISTAKE  OF  SENATOR  DOUGLAS'S  LIFE          57 

Missouri  Compromise.  Had  that  Compromise  not  been 
repealed,  it  is  probable  that  the  Democratic  party  would 
have  gone  on  in  control  of  the  Government  as  it  had 
done  so  long.  In  1856,  at  farthest  in  1860,  Stephen 
A.  Douglas  would  have  become  President.  The  old 
Whig  party  would  still  have  dragged  its  lazy  length 
along.  Ulysses  S.  Grant  would  have  continued  to 
weigh  raw  hides  on  the  back  alley  of  a  leather  store  at 
Galena,  and  Abraham  Lincoln  would  have  continued 
to  ride  the  circuit  and  tell  stories  in  Central  Illinois. 
There  would  have  been  no  Republican  party,  no  se 
cession,  and  no  war. 

Senator  Douglas  had  never  before  given  such  demon 
stration  of  his  supreme  control  of  Congress  as  in  carry 
ing  through  that  Nebraska  bill.  Never  before  had  there 
been  such  a  contest.  Never  did  men  fight  as  they 
fought  to  save  the  great  barrier  against  slavery.  All 
their  efforts  were  of  no  avail.  The  Senator  carried  his 
bill,  and  the  barrier  was  overthrown. 

Brilliant  as  was  his  victory  in  the  mighty  struggle, 
who  cannot  now  see  that  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri 
Compromise,  on  the  part  of  Senator  Douglas,  was  a 
mistake  ? 


CHAPTER  XXI 
DOUGLAS'S   POSITION  ON   SLAVEEY 

THE  whole  country  regarded  the  action  of  Senator 
Douglas  in  breaking  down  the  Missouri  Compro 
mise  line  as  opening  the  territories  of   Kansas 
and  Nebraska  to  slavery.     The  South  so  regarded  it,  as 
well  as  did  the  North.     The  people  of  the  North  and 
South  regarded  it  as  committing  the  Senator  to  the  South, 
and  that  henceforward  he  would  champion  her  cause. 

So  far  as  the  $egro  was  concerned  the  Senator  did  not 
regard  him  as  in  any  sense  a  citizen.  He  declared  over  and 
over  again :  "  This  is  a  white  man's  government  made 
by  white  men,  for  white  men  and  their  descendants." 
He  declared  that  the  fathers,  in  the  Declaration  that  all 
men  are  created  equal,  had  no  reference  whatever  to 
the  hegro.  In  all  he  said,  in  every  argument  he  made, 
he  classed  »egro  slaves  as  he  did  other  property,  and 
declared  that  so  far  as  the  action  of  the  people  of  the 
Territories  upon  the  question  was  concerned,  he  cared 
not  "whether  slavery  was  voted  down  or  voted  up." 
From  these  utterances  the  South  came  to  regard  him  as 
their  champion  to  fight  to  the  bitter  end  in  order  to 
fasten  slavery  upon  Kansas  and  Nebraska.1 

1  The  following,  from  the  pen  of  the  Hon.  Robert  M.  Douglas,  the 
eldest  son  of  Senator  Douglas,  whom  we  have  hereinbefore  quoted,  gives 
an  account  of  the  action  of  Senator  Douglas  when  slaves  v/ere  offered  him  : 

"I  deem  ...  it  simple  justice  to  his  [Senator  Douglas's]  memory  to 


DOUGLAS'S  POSITION  ON  SLAVERY  59 

But  the  fundamental  principle  of  his  Kansas  Ne 
braska  bill  was  to  leave  the  question  of  slavery  to  the 
people  of  the  Territory  interested.  He  went  before  the 
country  proclaiming  this  principle.  In  season  and  out 
of  season,  throughout  the  North  and  the  South,  he  ad 
vocated  "  popular,"  "  squatter  "  sovereignty.  He  never 
once  spoke  without  quoting  in  clarion  tones  that  signifi 
cant  sentence  of  his  bill :  "  Neither  to  legislate  slavery 
into  a  Territory,  nor  to  exclude  it  therefrom,  but  to 
leave  the  people  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate 

recall  the  fact  that  he  was  personally  opposed  to  slavery.  He  showed  the 
sincerity  of  his  convictions  by  refusing  a  gift  of  slave  property  offered  by 
his  father-in-law  in  the  contingency  of  the  failure  of  heirs  to  his  wife, 
which  would  have  been  worth  from  one  hundred  thousand  dollars  to  one 
hundred  and  twenty-five  thousand  dollars.  He  never  owned  or  accepted 
a  slave  or  the  proceeds  of  a  slave,  directly  or  indirectly ;  nor  would  he  per 
mit  himself  to  be  placed  in  a  position  where  the  ownership  of  slave  prop 
erty  might  be  east  upon  him  by  operation  of  law.  My  mother,  who  was  the 
only  child  of  Colonel  Robert  Martin  of  Rockingham  County,  North  Caro 
lina,  met  my  father  in  Washington  City  through  my  first  cousin,  Governor 
David  S.  Reid,  who  was  a  colleague  of  Judge  Douglas  both  in  the  House 
of  Representatives  and  in  the  Senate.  My  grandfather,  Colonel  Martin, 
died  1848,  after  my  mother's  marriage  but  before  my  birth. 

"In  his  will,  recorded  both  in  this  State  [North  Carolina]  and  Mis 
sissippi,  appears  the  following  paragraph:  'In  giving  to  my  dear  daughter 
full  and  complete  control  over  my  slaves  in  Mississippi  [his  slaves  in  North 
Carolina  having  been  left  to  his  wife  in  fee  simple]  I  make  to  her  one  dying 
request  instead  of  endeavoring  to  reach  the  case  in  this  will.  That  is,  that 
if  she  leaves  no  children,  to  make  provision  before  she  dies  to  have  all 
these  kegroes,  together  with  their  increase,  sent  to  Liberia  or  some  other 
colony  in  Africa.  By  giving  them  the  net  proceeds  of  the  last  crop  they 
make  would  fit  them  out  for  the  trip,  and  probably  leave  a  large  surplus 
to  aid  them  in  commencing  planting  in  that  country.  In  this  request  I 
would  remind  my  dear  daughter  that  her  husband  does  not  desire  to  own 
this  kind  of  property,  and  most  of  our  collateral  connexion  have  more  of 
that  kind  of  property  than  is  of  advantage  to  them.'  " 

Under  his  oath,  as  executor  of  Colonel  Martin,  it  was  the  duty  of  Senator 
Douglas  to  protect  the  property  belonging  to  his  children;  but  it  is  evi 
dent  from  the  above  provision  that  he  was  never  willing  to  own  personally 
a  slave  or  the  proceeds  of  a  slave. 


60  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way,  subject 
only  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States." 

Republicans  asserted  that  he  would  not  stand  by  the 
principle.  The  Southern  people  believed  that  he  was  so 
committed  to  them  that  he  could  not  do  otherwise  than 
sustain  slavery  in  a  Territory,  however  the  people  might 
vote. 

The  test  came.  After  the  most  violent  struggle  be 
tween  slavery  and  freedom  for  supremacy,  there  proved 
to  be  a  majority  in  the  Territory  of  Kansas  against 
slavery.  Senator  Douglas  took  no  part  in  the  struggle 
in  that  Territory,  but  kept  entirely  aloof  from  the  con 
test  ;  yet  he  kept  constantly  informed  as  to  the  situ 
ation,  examined  the  returns  of  every  voting  precinct, 
read  carefully  the  statements  of  public  officials,  and 
found,  as  every  intelligent  observer  found,  that  a  large 
majority  of  the  people  of  Kansas  were  opposed  to  per 
mitting  slavery  in  their  midst. 

Would  the  great  Senator  stand  by  the  principle  of 
"  popular  sovereignty  "  enunciated  in  his  bill,  or  would 
he,  at  the  behest  of  the  South,  force  slavery  upon  the 
people  of  Kansas,  against  their  will,  as  she  expected 
him  to  do  ?  He  was  still  dominant  in  Congress.  No 
other  man  was  so  potential.  What  course  would  he 
take? 

The  administration  of  President  Buchanan  had  passed 
entirely  under  the  control  of  the  South.  It  led  in  every 
measure  in  the  interest  of  slavery.  Whatever  the  slave 
power  demanded  was  done. 

A  convention  of  Kansas  pro-slavery  men  met  at 
Lecompton  and  formulated  a  constitution  recognizing 


JAMES  BUCHANAN 


DOUGLAS'S  POSITION  ON  SLAVERY  61 

slavery  and  presented  it  to  Congress,  asking  admission 
under  it  as  a  State  of  the  Union.  Had  Kansas  been 
admitted  under  that  Constitution  it  would  have  become 
a  slave  State. 

The  South,  with  an  almost  unanimous  vote,  urged 
that  Kansas  be  admitted  under  that  Constitution.  The 
administration  with  all  its  might  and  mind  and  strength 
supported  the  South  in  this  measure.  No  other  Demo 
crat  in  Congress  then  had  more  friends  in  the  South 
than  Senator  Douglas,  and  he  was  just  as  strong  in  the 
North.  Every  Federal  official  in  Illinois  —  marshals, 
postmasters,  and  all  others — had  been  appointed  upon 
Senator  Douglas's  recommendation,  and  were  his  friends. 
The  administration  had  become  so  committed  to  the 
South  that  Douglas  knew  that,  if  he  opposed  the  Le- 
compton  Constitution  and  permitted  the  will  of  the 
people  of  Kansas  to  be  carried  out,  the  administration 
and  the  whole  South  would  make  bitter  relentless  war 
upon  him.  That  which  was  even  more  terrible  to  him 
was,  he  knew  that  if  he  opposed  the  Lecompton  Con 
stitution  every  friend  he  had  recommended  to  office, 
men  who  had  stood  by  him  for  a  third  of  a  century, 
would  be  driven  from  position,  and  that  all  the  power 
of  the  administration  would  be  exerted  to  crush  him. 

Would  he  yield  to  the  administration  or  would  he 
obey  his  convictions  ?  Did  he  hesitate  ? 


CHAPTER  XXII 
THE   HEROISM   OF   DOUGLAS 

IMMEDIATELY  upon  his  arrival  at  Washington, 
when  Congress  met,  he  went  to  President  Buchanan 
and  frankly  told  him  that  he  had  become  convinced 
that  the  people  of  Kansas  had  declared  against  slavery 
and  that,  therefore,  he  could  not  favor  the  Lecompton 
Constitution,  and  that  he  must  oppose  its  adoption  on 
the  floor  of  the  Senate.  The  President  argued  the 
question  with  him,  told  him  that  he  would  be  breaking 
away  from  friends  who  relied  upon  him,  spoke  of  his 
great  influence  and  of  how  easy  it  would  be  for  him  to 
carry  the  Lecompton  Constitution  through  Congress, 
and  how  much  smoother  it  would  be  for  him  to  go  with 
his  friends  than  with  the  Republicans,  who  were  his 
enemies.  The  Senator  was  inexorable.  Finally,  the 
President  threatened  to  remove  all  those  from  office 
who  had  been  appointed  upon  his  recommendation. 
Thereupon  the  Senator  arose  and  respectfully  asked  to 
be  permitted  to  withdraw,  when  the  President  said : 

"  Senator,  I  wish  you  to  remember  that  no  Democrat 
ever  was  successful  in  opposing  the  policy  of  an  adminis 
tration  of  his  party." 

Senator  Douglas  drew  himself  up  and  replied  :  "  Mr. 
President,  permit  me  most  respectfully  to  remind  you 
that  General  Jackson  is  dead,'*  and  withdrew. 


THE  HEROISM  OF  DOUGLAS  63 

He  took  his  place  in  the  Senate ;  and  never  was  such 
a  war  waged  against  an  arbitrary  and  unscrupulous 
administration,  determined  to  force  an  obnoxious  and 
abhorrent  institution  upon  a  people  against  their  will. 
Never  did  a  great  statesman  rise  to  such  sublimity  of 
independence,  such  grandeur  of  patriotism,  as  did  Sen 
ator  .Douglas.  He  flung  to  the  winds  all  hope  of  favor 
and  support  from  an  administration  of  his  own  party, 
which  he  himself  more  than  any  other  had  been  the 
means  of  placing  in  power. 

It  is  difficult  for  men  in  this  generation  to  realize 
what  was  involved  in  this  action  of  the  great  Senator, 
who,  as  has  been  intimated,  up  to  that  moment  had 
been  the  idol  of  his  party  in  every  State  of  the  Union, 
South  as  well  as  North.  Democrats  of  the  North  had 
been  up  to  that  time  his  firm  and  enthusiastic  support 
ers,  and  he  was  adored  at  the  South. 

There  are  few  chapters  in  American  history  more 
interesting  than  those  which  give  the  account  of  the 
heroic  and  successful  contest  of  Senator  Douglas  in  an 
tagonism  to  the  effort  to  force  slavery  upon  the  people 
of  Kansas  through  admitting  her  into  the  Union  with 
the  Lecompton  Constitution  as  her  fundamental  law. 

Senator  Douglas  spoke  frequently  upon  the  question, 
and  it  would  be  instructive  for  the  student  to  follow  the 
whole  debate.  An  important  and  exhaustive  address 
was  made  by  him  on  the  eighth  of  December,  1857, 
upon  the  President's  annual  message,  in  which  Mr. 
Buchanan  clearly  indicated  his  determination  to  have 
Kansas  admitted  under  the  Lecompton  Constitution.  In 
the  course  of  that  address  Senator  Douglas  exclaimed : 


64  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

"Why  force  this  Constitution  down  the  throats  of 
the  people  of  Kansas  in  opposition  to  their  wishes  and 
in  violation  of  our  pledges  ?  What  great  object  is  to 
be  attained  ?  Cui  bono  ?  What  are  you  to  gain  by  it  ? 
Will  you  sustain  the  party  by  violating  its  principles  ? 
Do  you  propose  to  keep  the  party  united  by  forcing  a 
division  ?  Stand  by  the  doctrine  that  leaves  the  people 
perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  institutions  for 
themselves  in  their  own  way,  and  your  party  will  be 
united  and  irresistible  in  power.  Abandon  that  great 
principle,  and  the  party  is  not  worth  saving,  and  can 
not  be  saved  after  it  is  violated.  I  trust  that  we  are 
not  to  be  rushed  upon  this  question.  Why  should  it  be 
done  ?  Is  the  South  to  be  the  gainer  ?  Is  the  North 
to  be  the  gainer?  Neither  the  North  nor  the  South 
has  the  right  to  gain  a  sectional  advantage  by  trickery 
and  fraud."  Finally  President  Buchanan  transmitted 
to  Congress  the  Lecompton  Constitution  with  a  special 
message  recommending  that  Kansas  be  admitted  as 
a  State  under  it. 


CHAPTER  XXIII 

SPEECH    OF    DOUGLAS    AGAINST    THE    LECOMPTON 
CONSTITUTION 

SENATOR   DOUGLAS  was  at  the  time  ill  in  bed ; 
but  just  before  the  final  vote  was  to  be  taken  he 
arose  and  took  his  place  in  the  Senate,  and  then, 
on  the  twenty-second  of  March,  1858,  he  made  one  of 
the  greatest  speeches  of  his  life.     The  discussion  had 
been  going  on  for  several  days,  when  it  was  announced 
that  Senator  Douglas  would  speak  at  seven  o'clock  in 
the  evening. 

So  great  was  the  desire  to  hear  him,  that,  from  the 
time  when  the  Senate  adjourned  in  the  afternoon,  until 
the  evening,  the  people  kept  their  seats  in  the  galleries 
and  even  those  who  could  not  get  seats  remained.  Not 
only  the  seats,  but  all  the  standing-room  was  occupied, 
and  the  corridors  finally  became  so  crowded  that  it  was 
impossible  to  reach  the  gallery.  In  order  to  make  more 
room,  a  resolution  was  adopted  to  admit  ladies  to  the 
floor  of  the  Senate,  and  they  filled  every  available  space. 
It  is  impossible  that  there  can  ever  be  a  crowd  more 
vast  than  that  which  then  filled  the  Senate  chamber. 

There  is  no  more  dignified  body  upon  the  face  of  the 
earth  than  was  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  Its 
proceedings  were  conducted  with  the  most  perfect  de 
corum,  which  not  only  the  Senators  but  every  one  who 


66  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

entered  the  chamber  observed.  Such  a  thing  as  ap 
plause  in  the  galleries  had  scarcely  ever  been  known, 
but  as  Senator  Douglas  proceeded  to  portray  the  situa 
tion  in  Kansas  and  hold  up  to  scorn,  as  only  he  could 
do,  the  infamy  of  the  outrage  that  was  being  attempted, 
the  vast  concourse  of  people  could  not  restrain  them 
selves,  and  they  frequently  broke  out  into  tumultuous 
applause,  which  the  protest  of  several  Senators  could 
not  prevent,  until  it  was  ordered  that  unless  this  ceased, 
the  galleries  and  aisles  would  be  cleared. 

The  Senator  reviewed  the  whole  action  of  Congress 
upon  the  question  of  slavery  in  the  Territories  and  de 
clared  that,  after  the  policy  of  depending  upon  a  dividing 
line  north  of  which  slavery  was  prohibited  and  south 
of  which  it  was  permitted,  a  policy  was  adopted  in  the 
Fugitive  Slave  Law  of  1850  and  the  Nebraska  bill  of 
1854,  under  which  the  question  was  to  be  left  to  the 
people  of  the  Territories  to  be  settled  for  themselves. 

After  this  introduction  the  Senator  proceeded  to  take 
up  in  detail  the  political  proceedings  of  the  Kansas 
people  at  the  polls,  in  popular  elections,  in  their  Legis 
lature,  in  their  constitutional  conventions,  and  showed 
beyond  the  possibility  of  a  doubt  that  a  large  majority 
were  opposed  to  slavery.  He  showed  that  if  Kansas 
were  admitted  under  the  Lecompton  Constitution  a 
State  government  would  be  brought  into  existence  not 
only  by  fraudulent  voting,  but  by  forged  returns,  sus 
tained  by  perjury.  He  showed  that  the  people  at  an 
election  had,  on  the  fourth  of  January,  repudiated  the 
Lecompton  Constitution  by  a  majority  of  ten  thousand ; 
and  he  exclaimed : 


SPEECH  AGAINST  LECOMPTON  CONSTITUTION         67 

"  If  further  evidence  were  necessary  to  show  that  the 
Lecompton  Constitution  is  not  the  will  of  the  people  of 
Kansas,  you  find  it  in  the  action  of  the  Legislature  of 
that  Territory.      On  the  first  Monday  of  October  an 
election  took  place  for  members  of  the  Territorial  Leg 
islature.     It  was  a  severe  struggle   between  the   two 
great  parties  in  the  Territory.     On  a  fair  test,  and  at 
the  fairest  election,  as  is  recorded  on  all  hands,  ever 
held  in  the  Territory  a  Legislature  was  elected.     That 
Legislature  came  together  and  remonstrated  by  an  over 
whelming  majority  against  this  Constitution  as  not  be 
ing  the  act  and  deed  of  that  people,  and  not  embodying 
their  will.    Ask  the  late  Governor  of  that  Territory,1 
and  he  will  tell  you  that  it  is  a  mockery  to  call  this 
the  act  and  deed  of  that  people.      Ask  the  Secretary 
of  the  Territory,  ex- Governor  Stanton,  and  he  will  tell 
you  the  same  thing.     I  will  hazard  the  prediction  that, 
if  you  ask  Governor  Denver  to-day,  he  will  tell  you,  if 
he  answers  at  all,  that  it  is  a  mockery,  nay,  a  crime,  to 
attempt  to  enforce  this  Constitution  as  an  embodiment 
of  the  will  of  the  people.     Ask  then  your  official  agents 
in  the  Territory;  ask   the  Legislature  elected  by  the 
people  at  the  last  election ;  consult  the  poll  books  on  a 
fair  election  held  in  pursuance  of  law ;  consult  private 
citizens  from  there ;  consult  whatever  sources  of  infor 
mation  you  please,  and   you  get  the   same  answer  — 
that  this  Constitution  does  not  embody  the  public  will, 
is  not  the  act  and  deed  of  the  people,  does  not  represent 
their  wishes ;  and  hence,  I  deny  your  right,  your  au 
thority,  to  make  it  their  organic  law." 

1  Robert  J.  Walker,  former  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  a  Southern  man 
appointed  by  Mr.  Buchanan. 


68  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 

Much  stress  was  laid  by  the  supporters  of  the  admin 
istration  upon  the  fact  that  that  Constitution  provided 
that  after  six  years,  in  1864,  it  might  be  so  amended, 
if  the  people  desired,  as  to  exclude  slavery.  In  regard 
to  this,  Senator  Douglas  declared  : 

"I  do  not  object  that  this  Constitution  cannot  be 
changed  until  1864,  provided  you  will  show  me  it  to  be 
the  act  and  deed  of  the  people  and  that  it  embodies 
their  will  now.  If  it  be  not  their  act  and  deed,  you 
have  no  right  to  fix  it  on  them  for  a  day,  nor  for  an  hour, 
nor  for  an  instant ;  for  it  is  a  violation  of  the  principle 
of  free  government  to  force  it  upon  them." 

Senator  Douglas  had  no  idea  of  permitting  slavery, 
which  a  majority  of  the  people  abhorred,  to  exist  in  the 
new  State  until  it  should  obtain  a  firm  foothold,  as  was 
desired  by  its  champions. 

During  all  this  most  heroic  fight  for  freedom  in  Kansas 
the  Senator  proclaimed  that,  had  the  people  of  that 
Territory  decided  in  favor  of  slavery,  he  would  just  as 
earnestly  and  persistently  have  fought  against  the  Free- 
soilers  for  the  admission  of  the  Territory  as  a  slave 
State.  To  the  question  of  the  right  and  wrong  of 
slavery  so  far  as  that  controversy  was  concerned,  he  was 
entirely  indifferent.  The  Senator's  only  solicitude  was 
to  find  what  was  the  will  of  the  people  of  Kansas,  and  he 
spared  no  pains  to  ascertain  that ;  and  when  convinced 
that  they  were  opposed  to  slavery  he  would  not  permit 
it  to  be  forced  upon  them.  No  one  can  justly  charge 
Senator  Douglas  of  being  recreant  to  the  principle  of 
popular  sovereignty  as  enunciated  in  his  Nebraska  bill. 
Because  it  did  not  embody  the  will  of  the  people  of 


SPEECH  AGAINST  LECOMPTON  CONSTITUTION         69 

Kansas  he  fought  the  Lecompton  Constitution  until  it 
was  buried  out  of  sight.  Then  men  realized  how  great 
and  strong  and  brave  was  the  great  statesman  who  so 
ably  represented  Illinois  in  the  Senate. 

It  is  true,  as  was  afterwards  declared  by  Mr.  Lincoln, 
that  the  Republicans  in  Congress  gave  most  of  the  votes 
necessary  to  defeat  the  administration  in  its  efforts  to 
force  slavery  upon  Kansas  through  the  Lecompton  Con 
stitution  ;  yet  it  is  equally  true  that  but  for  Senator 
Douglas  the  infamy  would  have  been  accomplished. 


CHAPTER   XXIV 

PRESIDENTIAL   DICTATION   TO   MEMBERS   OF 
CONGRESS 

SENATOR  DOUGLAS'S  second  term  in  the  United 
States  Senate  was  about  to  expire.  As  has  been 
said,  from  the  moment  he  announced  his  deter 
mination  to  oppose  the  Lecompton  Constitution  the 
administration  made  war  upon  him  in  Illinois  in  the 
hope  of  defeating  him  for  reelection.  Every  Federal 
official  who  would  not  join  in  the  hue  and  cry  against 
Senator  Douglas  was  turned  out,  and  an  enemy  ap 
pointed  in  his  place.  Every  newspaper  that  could  be 
controlled  by  patronage  or  otherwise  was  set  upon  him, 
and  there  was  no  limit  to  their  remorseless  assaults. 

Senator  Douglas  wished  above  all  things  to  be  re- 
elected,  but  he  was  undaunted.  Important  as  it  was  to 
him  in  that  awful  crisis  of  his  life  to  have  the  support 
that  power  and  patronage  could  give,  he  did  not  falter. 
In  the  great  speech  from  which  we  have  quoted  he 
said : 

"  I  do  not  recognize  the  right  of  the  President  or  his 
cabinet,  no  matter  what  my  respect  may  be  for  them, 
to  tell  me  my  duty  in  the  Senate  chamber.  The  Presi 
dent  has  his  duty  to  perform  under  the  Constitution, 
and  he  is  responsible  to  his  constituency.  A  Senator 
has  his  duties  to  perform  here  under  the  Constitution 


PRESIDENTIAL  DICTATION  TO  MEMBERS  OF  CONGRESS    71 

and  according  to  his  oath,  and  he  is  responsible  to  the 
sovereign  State  he  represents  as  his  constituency.  A 
member  of  the  House  of  Representatives  has  his  duties 
under  the  Constitution  and  his  oath,  and  he  is  responsi 
ble  to  the  people  who  elected  him.  The  President  has 
no  more  right  to  prescribe  tests  to  Senators  than  Sena 
tors  have  to  the  President.  Suppose  we  here  should 
attempt  to  prescribe  a  test  of  faith  to  the  President  of 
the  United  States,  would  he  not  rebuke  our  imperti 
nence  and  impudence,  as  subversive  of  the  fundamental 
principle  of  the  Constitution?  Would  he  not  tell  us 
that  the  Constitution  and  his  oath  and  his  conscience 
were  his  guides  —  that  we  must  perform  our  duties, 
and  he  would  perform  his,  and  let  each  be  responsible 
to  his  own  constituency  ? 

"  Sir,  when  the  time  comes  that  the  President  of  the 
United  States  can  change  the  allegiance  of  the  Senators 
from  the  States  to  himself,  what  becomes  of  the  sover 
eignty  of  the  States  ?  When  the  time  comes  that  a 
Senator  is  to  account  to  the  executive  and  not  to  his 
State,  whom  does  he  represent  ?  If  the  will  of  my  State 
is  one  way  and  the  will  of  the  President  the  other,  am 
I  to  be  told  that  I  must  obey  the  executive  and  be 
tray  my  State,  or  else  be  branded  as  a  traitor  to  the 
party  and  be  hunted  down  by  all  the  newspapers  that 
share  the  patronage  of  the  Government  ?  And  is  every 
man  who  holds  a  petty  office  in  any  part  of  my  State 
to  have  the  question  put  to  him,  '  Are  you  Douglas's 
enemy  ?  If  not,  your  head  comes  off/  Why  ?  '  Because 
he  is  a  recreant  Senator ;  because  he  chooses  to  follow 
his  judgment  and  his  conscience,  and  to  represent  his 


72  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 

State,  instead  of  obeying  my  executive  behest/  I 
should  like  to  know  what  is  the  use  of  Congresses,  what 
is  the  use  of  Senates  and  Houses  of  Representatives, 
when  their  highest  duty  is  to  obey  the  executive  in 
disregard  of  the  wishes,  rights,  and  honor  of  their 
constituents.'' 

On  account  of  his  gallant  fight  against  the  Lecompton 
Constitution  Horace  Greeley,  the  editor  of  the  leading 
Republican  newspaper  in  the  United  States,  recom 
mended  to  the  Republicans  of  Illinois  that  they  make 
no  nomination  of  a  Senator,  but  reelect  Douglas  by  a 
unanimous  vote.  This  was  the  general  consensus  of 
opinion  among  Republicans  of  other  States. 

No  one  outside  of  Illinois  had  any  idea  that  there 
was  any  other  American  able  to  cope  with  Senator 
Douglas  in  a  campaign  before  the  people.  Certainly,  no 
one  had  then  appeared  who  had  been  so  prominently 
connected  with  the  great  measures  that  had  come  before 
the  country.  There  was  no  American  who  had  fought 
so  many  forensic  battles  and  gained  such  conquests. 


CHAPTER    XXV 
RECAPITULATION 

IN  order  to  have  any  proper  and  just  estimation  of 
how  Senator  Douglas  was  regarded  at  that  time,  it 
may  not  be  out  of  place  to  recapitulate  and  call 
especial  attention  to  the  measures  with  which  he  had 
been  prominently  connected,  most  of  which  were  famil 
iar  to  the  people  of  Illinois  : 

The  vindication  of  Andrew  Jackson. 

His  attitude  on  the  Mexican  war  through  which  we 
acquired  California,  New  Mexico,  and  Arizona. 

His  championship  of  the  "Fifty-four  forty  or  fight" 
doctrine  on  the  Oregon  question. 

His  important  part  in  the  Compromise  Measures  of 
1850. 

His  carrying  through  Congress  the  bill  to  establish 
the  Illinois  Central  Eailway. 

His  advocacy  of  waterways  and  internal  improvements. 

His  support  of  a  liberal  foreign  policy. 

His  favoring  expansion. 

His  antagonism  toward  the  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty. 

His  advocacy  of  a  railway  across  the  continent. 

His  potentiality  in  Congress  and  in  the  country. 

His  Kansas  Nebraska  bill. 

Finally,  his  gallant  fight  against  the  Lecompton  Con 
stitution  and  his  share  in  making  Kansas  a  free  State. 


74  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 

At  that  time  Senator  Douglas  was  the  foremost 
American  statesman.  When  he  overthrew  the  Missouri 
Compromise  line,  that  mighty  barricade  wall  against 
slavery,  he  was  the  most  potential  of  Americans,  domi 
nating  not  only  the  Senate,  of  which  he  was  the  most 
conspicuous  member,  but  the  House  of  Representatives 
and,  in  so  far  as  he  desired,  the  executive. 

If  the  reader  has  followed  in  these  pages  the  career 
of  Douglas,  from  the  time  when,  a  friendless,  penniless 
boy,  he  first  appeared  upon  the  prairies  of  Illinois,  he 
will  realize  that  the  great  Senator  did  not  attain  to  this 
supreme  authoritativeness  by  accident.  Through  years 
of  experience  and  activity  in  statecraft,  as  a  member  of 
the  Legislature  of  Illinois,  as  a  lawyer,  as  a  public 
official,  as  a  man  of  affairs,  as  a  judge  on  the  bench,  as 
a  member  of  the  Lower  House  of  Congress,  as  a  Senator, 
he  had  labored.  He  had  familiarized  himself  with  the 
political  history  of  the  country  to  such  a  degree  that  he 
was  always  ready  in  discussion  of  public  questions  to 
give  in  detail  just  when  and  how  and  where  a  measure 
had  been  considered,  and  just  what  action  if  any  had 
been  taken,  and  why.  He  knew  the  Constitution  by 
heart,  and  the  laws  made  in  pursuance  thereof,  and  was 
able  at  any  moment  to  cite  precedents,  if  any  had  been 
made,  relating  to  a  matter  under  consideration.  He 
was  positive,  bold,  and  aggressive,  the  ablest  debater  in 
the  Senate  —  so  able  that,  since  the  passing  away  of 
Webster  and  Clay  and  Calhoun,  no  man  in  public  life 
could  cope  with  him.  He  was  a  natural  leader  of  men. 


HORACE  GREELEY 


CHAPTER  XXYI 

ABRAHAM    LINCOLN 

BUT,  notwithstanding  his  great  fame,  notwith 
standing  his  achievements,  notwithstanding  all 
the  distinction  he  had  conferred  upon  the  State, 
notwithstanding  his  gallant  fight  to  save  Kansas  from 
having  slavery  forced  upon  her,  notwithstanding  that 
Republicans  of  other  States  urged  that  he  be  reflected, 
the  Republicans  of  Illinois  would  not  favor  the  reelec 
tion  of  Senator  Douglas.  They  rose  up  as  one  man 
against  him. 

Douglas  had  declared  that,  had  the  people  of  Kansas 
so  desired,  he  would  just  as  earnestly  have  championed 
a  slave  constitution.  He  had  said,  as  regarding  his 
position  as  to  the  right  of  the  people  of  the  Territories 
to  decide,  that  he  cared  not  whether  slavery  was  voted 
down  or  voted  up.  He  had  been  the  means  of  abrogat 
ing  the  Missouri  Compromise  line  which  in  itself  pro 
hibited  slavery  in  those  Territories. 

Besides  all  this,  the  Republicans  of  Illinois  had  a  man 
whom  they  knew  thoroughly  and  in  whom  they  im 
plicitly  relied,  a  man  who  was  opposed  to  any  further 
extension  of  slavery,  a  man  who  did  care  whether 
slavery  was  voted  down  or  voted  up,  a  man  who  would 
never  have  consented  to  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Com 
promise,  a  man  who,  they  believed,  could  cope  with 


76  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 

Senator  Douglas.  This  the  Republicans  of  other  States 
did  not  and  could  not  know. 

It  may  be  doubted  whether  any  other  man  that  ever 
lived  has  been  endowed  with  such  power  of  analysis  as 
was  Abraham  Lincoln.  He  would  take  up  a  problem 
and  divide  it  into  its  component  parts,  as  a  skilled 
chemist  would  separate  the  component  parts  of  a  solid 
or  a  fluid,  and  weigh  each  individual  substance,  and 
ascribe  to  each  so  much  or  so  little  importance  as  it 
merited.  This  thorough  analysis  was  made  with  delib 
eration,  and  he  was  able  to  come  to  such  a  conclusion 
as  was  scarcely  ever  wrong.  Through  this  power  of 
analysis  he  was  able  to  see  clearly  what  had  been  and 
to  form  an  opinion  of  what  would  be,  "  looking  before 
and  after,"  as  Shakespeare  expresses  it. 

Throughout  many  years  of  obscurity  and  disappoint 
ment,  passed  during  much  of  the  time  in  poverty, 
Abraham  Lincoln  had  been  a  student  and  an  observer. 
While  he  was  denied  the  privilege  of  taking  a  part  in 
and  directing  public  affairs,  moved  by  the  most  intense 
feelings  of  patriotism,  his  interest  in  them  was  so  pro 
found  and  absorbing  that  every  question  was  by  him 
thoroughly  investigated  and  considered.  As  the  sequel 
proved,  Mr.  Lincoln  was  better  able  to  canvass  and 
consider  problems  of  government  than  would  have  been 
possible  had  he  been  a  conspicuous  actor  in  them ;  and 
he  was  better  equipped  to  cope  with  the  great  statesman 
than  any  Senator  in  Congress  or  any  other  person  with 
whom  the  Senator  had  hitherto  contended  in  debate. 

Fresh  from  the  mighty  contest  in  the  Senate,  in 
which  he  had  been  the  victor;  with  the  prestige  of 


ABRAHAM  LINCOLN  77 

having  vindicated  the  principle  of  popular  sovereignty, 
which  he  had  promulgated  for  the  Territories,  Senator 
Douglas  came  home  to  Illinois.  Tens  of  thousands  of 
people  turned  out  with  glad  acclaim  to  welcome  him. 
Surely  there  would  be  no  question  as  to  his  return  to  a 
deliberative  body  in  which  he  had  gained  so  many 
laurels.  Surely  there  would  be  no  one  who  could  cope 
with  a  Senator  who  had  met  and  worsted  in  debate  the 
ablest  men  in  public  life.  His  vindication  of  the  right 
of  the  people  of  Kansas  to  govern  themselves  fresh  in 
the  minds  of  the  people  must  carry  him  triumphantly 
back  to  the  Senate. 

Before  the  Senator  reached  home  he  read  in  the  news 
papers  the  following  sentiment : 

"  A  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand.  I  be 
lieve  that  this  Government  cannot  endure  permanently 
half  slave  and  half  free." 

To  this  was  added,  "  I  do  not  expect  the  Union  to  be 
dissolved  —  I  do  not  expect  the  house  to  fall  —  but  I 
do  expect  it  will  cease  to  be  divided.  It  will  become 
all  one  thing  or  all  the  other.' ' 

Although  slavery  had  existed  in  the  country  almost 
from  the  time  of  the  first  settlement  of  the  continent, 
no  such  sentiment  had  ever  before  been  proclaimed. 
Through  all  the  State  papers  of  Hamilton  and  Madison 
and  Jay,  through  all  the  voluminous  writings  of  Jeffer 
son,  through  all  the  opinions  of  Chief  Justice  Marshall, 
through  all  the  addresses  of  Webster  and  Clay  and 
Calhoun,  one  will  look  in  vain  for  such  a  sentiment. 

It  remained  for  a  comparatively  obscure  lawyer, 
Abraham  Lincoln,  after  a  lifetime  of  observation  and 


78  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 

reflection,  to  come  to  this  conclusion.  When  the  prop 
osition  was  once  stated,  its  correctness  was  so  apparent 
that  it  became  axiomatic.  The  sentiment,  "  This  Gov 
ernment  cannot  endure  permanently  half  slave  and  half 
free,  it  must  become  all  one  thing  or  all  the  other,"  sent 
a  thrill  through  the  hearts  of  men  from  Maine  to  Cali 
fornia,  As  men  reflected  and  recalled  the  mighty  strug 
gles  for  supremacy  through  which  the  two  sections  had 
passed,  that  of  1820,  that  of  1850,  and  that  which  was 
then  culminating,  it  became  more  and  more  apparent  to 
them  that  this  Illinois  lawyer  was  right,  and  that  the 
only  hope  and  the  last  hope  of  saving  the  nation  was 
by  its  becoming  "all  one  thing  or  all  the  other." 

Emerson  says  that  to  believe  your  own  thought,  to 
follow  what  is  true  for  you  in  your  private  heart,  is 
true  for  all  men,  —  that  is  genius.  Speak  your  latent 
conviction  and  it  shall  be  the  universal  sense;  for 
always  the  inmost  becomes  the  outmost  and  our  first 
thought  is  rendered  back  to  us  by  the  trumpets  of 
the  last  judgment.  Familiar  as  is  the  voice  of  the 
mind  to  each,  the  highest  merit  we  ascribe  to  Moses, 
Plato,  or  Milton  is  that  they  set  at  naught  books  and 
traditions  and  spoke  not  what  men  thought,  but 
what  they  thought.  Abraham  Lincoln  believed  his 
own  thought  and  expressed  it. 

John  W.  Draper  said  :  "  An  idea  may  possess  su 
preme  political  influence.  A  sentiment  expressed  by  a 
few  words  may  break  up  nationalities  venerable  for 
their  antiquity,-  rearrange  races  of  men  and  revolu 
tionize  the  world." 

The  Senator  came  home  believing  that  through  his 


ABRAHAM  LINCOLN  79 

gallant  fight  against  the  Lecompton  Constitution  he 
had  dictated  the  issue  of  the  campaign  :  he  found  that 
by  proclaiming  the  sentiment  we  have  quoted  this 
Springfield  lawyer  had  dictated  the  issue  and  placed 
him  upon  the  defensive  from  that  time  forward. 

In  his  great  opening  speech  at  Chicago,  where  tens 
of  thousands  turned  out  to  hear  him,  Senator  Douglas 
was  confronted  with  this  sentiment.  It  had  not  then 
reached  the  ear  of  the  general  public.  Uttered  by  one 
who  was  scarcely  known  beyond  the  limits  of  Illinois, 
it  had  attracted  little  attention  throughout  the  country 
at  large.  But  that  lawyer  who  had  proclaimed  the 
sentiment  was  the  opposing  candidate  to  the  great 
Senator,  and  what  he  said  could  not  be  ignored. 

Senator  Douglas  read  the  sentiment  to  his  audience 
and  tried  to  answer  it.  Every  word  he  uttered  was 
read  everywhere,  and  when  he  quoted  it,  it  arrested 
the  attention  of  the  whole  country.  Then  men  in 
other  States  began  to  ask,  "  Who  is  this  man  Lincoln  ? 
Why  have  we  not  heard  of  him  before  ?  " 

The  Senator  devoted  much  of  that  great  Chicago  ad 
dress  to  an  attempt  to  refute  that  declaration  of  his 
adversary,  arguing  that  as  the  Government  had  endured 
for  so  many  years,  half  slave  and  half  free,  there  was  no 
reason  why  it  should  not  so  continue  to  endure  perma 
nently.  He  spoke  again  at  Bloomington  before  a  vast 
assemblage ;  again  at  Springfield,  and  from  day  to  day 
throughout  the  State.  In  every  speech  he  quoted  this 
sentiment  and  vainly  tried  to  answer  it. 


CHAPTER  XXVII 
THE  LINCOLN-DOUGLAS  DEBATES 

FINALLY  Mr.  Lincoln  challenged  the  Senator  to 
meet  him  in  joint  debates  face  to  face.  Mr. 
Lincoln  gave  as  a  reason  for  making  this  chal 
lenge  that,  while  on  account  of  his  great  fame  every 
body  turned  out  to  hear  Senator  Douglas,  the  Democrats 
would  not  come  to  hear  him  at  Republican  meetings 
where  he  was  speaking.  He  said,  "If  we  have  joint 
debates,  the  Democrats  will  come  out  to  hear  Douglas, 
and  I  will  get  at  them." 

Senator  Douglas  promptly  accepted  the  challenge, 
and  there  were  seven  joint  debates,  held  at  Ottawa, 
Freeport,  Jonesboro,  Charleston,  Galesburg,  Quincy, 
and  Alton,  in  the  order  named. 

In  every  one  of  those  debates,  Senator  Douglas 
quoted  the  sentiment  of  Mr.  Lincoln  to  which  reference 
has  been  made,  and  tried  to  answer  it.  The  more  he 
struggled  to  refute  it,  the  more  apparent  did  its  truth 
appear.  Before  the  sentiment,  "  This  government  can 
not  endure  permanently  half  slave  and  half  free  —  it 
must  become  all  one  thing  or  all  the  other,"  before  this 
idea  that  possessed  supreme  political  power,  this  senti 
ment,  expressed  by  few  words,  went  down  forever  all 
the  compromises,  all  the  machinations  of  the  politi 
cians  and  time-servers.  And,  although  temporarily 


THE  LINCOLN-DOUGLAS  DEBATES  81 

successful,  the  great  Senator  himself  was  finally  engulfed 
in  the  maelstrom  of  public  opinion  which  it  aroused. 

Mr.  Lincoln  showed  that  under  the  Dred  Scott  de 
cision,  which  Senator  Douglas  endorsed,  slavery  was 
already  lawful  in  the  Territories,  and  that  by  going  one 
'  step  further  the  court  could  make  it  lawful  in  all  the 
States.  His  argument  was  clear  and  convincing  and 
conclusive  that  under  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  so  far  as 
the  naked  question  of  law  was  concerned,  slavery  was 
already  legalized  and  that  as  Senator  Douglas  endorsed 
that  decision  he  was  committed  to  this  proposition. 
The  Senator  was  not  slow  to  realize  that  unless  this 
were  answered  in  some  way,  the  public  would  become 
,  convinced  that,  notwithstanding  the  defeat  of  the 
Lecompton  Constitution,  slavery  already  existed  and 
'  must  continue  to  exist  in  Kansas,  and  that  all  his 
opposition  to  that  Constitution  was  of  no  avail. 

Senator  Douglas  was  not  slow  to  realize  that  by  this 
he  was  placed  in  an  awkward  position ;  and,  at  Bloom- 
ington,  Mr.  Lincoln  being  present,  he  sought  to  extri 
cate  himself  from  the  dilemma  by  showing  that  slavery 
could  not,  notwithstanding  the  decision  of  the  Supreme 
Court,  "exist  one  day  or  one  hour  in  any  Territory 
against  the  unfriendly  legislation  of  an  unfriendly 
people." 

"  I  care  not,"  he  said,  "  how  the  Dred  Scott  decision 
may  have  settled  the  abstract  question.  If  the  people 
of  a  Territory  want  slavery  they  will  encourage  it  by 
passing  affirmative  laws  and  the  necessary  police  regu 
lations,  patrol  laws,  and  slave  code;  if  they  do  not 
want  it  they  will  withhold  that  legislation,  and  by 


82  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 

withholding  it  slavery  is  as  dead  as  if  prohibited  by  a 
constitutional  prohibition." 

Often  it  has  been  asserted  that  Senator  Douglas  was 
"  driven  into  a  corner  "  at  Freeport  by  Mr.  Lincoln  and 
forced  to  make  this  declaration,  notwithstanding  the 
fact  that  six  weeks  before  the  Freeport  debate,  in  pres 
ence  of  Mr.  Lincoln  at  Bloomington,  he  had  made  a 
similar  declaration,  and  also  at  Springfield,  the  day  after 
he  spoke  at  Bloomington,  which  was  then  published  in 
The  Illinois  State  Register.  Senator  Douglas  was  not  a 
man  to  be  driven  into  a  corner. 

Mr.  Lincoln  frequently  declared  that  the  sentiment  of 
the  Declaration  of  Independence,  "  All  men  are  created 
equal, "  applied  to  the  negro  as  well  as  to  the  white 
man.  Senator  Douglas  denied  this,  and  declared  that 
because  Mr.  Lincoln  so  believed  he  wanted  to  go  into 
the  South  and  set  the  slaves  free ;  that  he  favored  ftegro 
equality  and  wanted  to  permit  the  ftegroes  to  vote  and 
hold  office  and  intermarry  with  the  whites.  Lincoln 
showed  the  absurdity  of  all  this,  stigmatizing  it  as  that 
false  logic  which  assumed  that  because  he  did  not  want 
a  black  woman  as  a  slave  he  did  want  her  for  a  wife. 
Mr.  Lincoln  was  too  wary  to  permit  himself  to  be 
committed  to  such  doctrines. 

There  is  nothing  more  remarkable  in  the  great 
debates  than  the  modesty  with  which  Mr.  Lincoln 
entered  into  them. 

We  found  him  at  the  opening  declaring:  "Senator 
Douglas  wants  to  keep  me  down.  Put  me  down  I 
should  not  say,  for  I  have  never  been  up." 

In  speaking  of  when  he  and  Douglas  first  met,  he  said: 


THE  LINCOLN-DOUGLAS  DEBATES  83 

"  We  were  both  young  then,  he  a  trifle  younger  than  I. 
Even  then  we  were  both  ambitious,  I  perhaps  as  much 
as  he.  With  me  the  race  of  ambition  has  been  a  fail 
ure —  a  flat  failure.  With  him  it  has  been  one  of 
splendid  success.  His  name  fills  the  nation  and  is  not 
unknown  in  foreign  lands.  I  affect  no  contempt  for  the 
high  eminence  he  has  reached.  ...  I  would  rather 
stand  upon  that  eminence  than  wear  the  richest  crown 
that  ever  pressed  a  monarch's  brow." 

While  Senator  Douglas  in  conversation  expressed  the 
highest  appreciation  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  character  and  abil 
ities,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  in  the  debates  he  sought 
to  "  damn  him  with  faint  praise."  We  find  him  speak 
ing  of  Mr.  Lincoln  as  a  "quiet,  amiable,  intelligent 
gentleman,"  telling  how  as  a  young  man  "  he  was  then 
just  as  good  at  telling  an  anecdote  as  now.  He  could 
beat  any  of  the  boys  wrestling  or  running  a  foot  race, 
in  pitching  quoits  or  tossing  a  copper,  could  ruin  more 
liquor  than  all  the  boys  in  the  town  together,  and  the 
dignity  and  impartiality  with  which  he  presided  at  a 
horse  race  or  fist  fight  excited  the  admiration  and 
won  the  praise  of  everybody  that  was  present  and  par 
ticipated.  I  sympathized  with  him  because  he  was 
struggling  with  difficulties  and  so  was  I.  Mr.  Lincoln 
worked  with  me  in  the  Legislature  of  1836,  when  we 
both  retired,  and  he  subsided  or  became  submerged,  and 
he  was  lost  sight  of  as  a  public  man  for  some  years." 

Never  in  Illinois,  nor  perhaps  anywhere  else,  was 
there  such  interest  in  public  meetings  as  in  those  when 
Douglas  and  Lincoln  met  face  to  face.  There  was 
plenty  of  time  to  give  notice,  and  all  the  people  within 


84  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 

a  radius  of  fifty  miles  of  where  the  debate  was  to  be 
held  were  aroused.  The  fact  that  the  masses  of  both 
political  parties  assembled  insured  a  vast  crowd.  Or 
ganizations  were  made  by  both  parties  at  every  town 
and  hamlet  to  get  up  processions  and  insure  the  largest 
possible  attendance.  Some  of  the  processions  were 
more  than  a  mile  long.  All  the  debates  were  held  in 
the  open  air. 

It  was  a  curious  sight  to  look  upon  when  the  vast 
crowd  of  earnest  men  and  women  of  both  parties  were 
wedged  in  together  before  the  grand  stand.  There  was 
the  usual  jostling  and  crowding  to  get  good  places. 
There  was  taunting  and  jeering  between  the  represent 
atives  of  each  party  but  very  few  breaches  of  the 
peace.  When  the  speaking  began  there  was  almost 
perfect  order.  If  the  pent-up  feelings  of  either  party 
caused  an  angry  demonstration,  its  representative  on 
the  platform  would  rise  and  beg  his  friends  to  desist. 
When  they  applauded  a  speaker  he  would  beg  them 
to  cease  as  it  would  be  taken  out  of  his  time. 

The  timekeepers,  made  up  from  both  political  parties, 
seated  upon  the  platform,  were  inexorable.  The  speak 
ers  alternated  at  the  different  places  in  opening  and 
closing.  At  the  precise  moment  in  which  the  time 
for  opening  arrived,  the  first  speaker  must  begin.  A 
speaker  was  given  an  hour  for  his  opening ;  then  his 
competitor  had  an  hour  and  a  half  ;  and  he  who  opened 
was  given  half  an  hour  to  close.  Time  was  called  at 
the  moment  a  speaker  should  conclude,  and  he  could 
only  finish  the  sentence  he  was  upon  and  could  not 
begin  another. 


THE  LINCOLN-DOUGLAS  DEBATES  85 

In  speaking,  Douglas  stood  firmly  upon  his  feet,  mov 
ing  but  little.  He  was,  although  so  short,  dignified 
and  stately.  Small  as  he  was,  he  seemed  sometimes 
majestic.  Had  he  been  so  large  in  stature  his  figure 
would  have  been  as  imposing  as  was  that  of  Webster. 
One  writer  in  describing  him  has  said  that  his  face 
suggested  the  infinite.  His  voice  was  a  deep  bass 
and  had  a  great  carrying  power,  by  which  he  was  able 
to  reach  a  vast  multitude.  Each  word  distinctly 
uttered  was  projected  out  from  his  deep  chest  as  if 
fired  from  a  columbiad. 

He  was  positive,  bold,  aggressive,  and  assertive.  His 
manner  of  argument  was  something  like  thisi^incoln 
declares  that  the  Government  must  become  all  free  or 
all  slave ;  therefore,  Lincoln  is  sectional  and  favors  a 
war  upon  the  slave  States.  He  declares  that  to  endure 
permanently  the  Government  must  become  all  one  thing 
or  all  the  other ;  therefore  he  insists  upon  uniformity ; 
that  the  same  laws  shall  be  enacted  in  every  State, 
whatever  the  conditions;  therefore  he  is  for  over 
throwing  State  rights,  and  making  every  community 
conform  to  the  customs  of  every  other  community. 
Lincoln  refuses  to  obey  the  mandate  of  the  Supreme 
Court  in  the  Dred  Scott  decision ;  therefore  Lincoln 
seeks  to  create  among  the  people  a  feeling  of  contempt 
for  the  courts  and  to  break  down  our  system  of  juris 
prudence  ;  Lincoln  believes  that  the  sentiment  "  all  men 
are  created  equal  "  was  intended  to  apply  to  the  ftegro ; 
therefore  Lincoln  favors  tfegroes  the  same  as  white 
men,  and  favors  amalgamation,  miscegenation.,  and  a 
general  mixing  of  the  racear 

W 


86  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 

Mr.  Lincoln  was  angular  and  rawboned,  his  limbs 
long.  He  was  gaunt  of  body,  his  neck  long,  his  cheek 
bones  high,  his  features  irregular,  his  arching  eye 
brows  overshadowing.  He  was  generally  regarded  as 
a  homely  man,  but  upon  occasions  when  he  rose  to  the 
full  apprehension  of  a  subject  in  which  he  was  inter 
ested,  all  the  rugged  inequalities  of  his  frame  and  feat 
ures  combined  to  make  him  appear  majestic  and  even 
sublime. 

His  voice  was  keyed  upon  rather  a  high  pitch,  clear 
but  not  shrill,  and  his  ringing  tones  reached  even  more 
people  than  did  the  deeper  ones  of  Douglas. 

Mr.  Lincoln  was,  until  he  warmed  into  his  subject, 
apologetic.  He  often  seemed  to  have  misgivings  as  to 
whether  he  was  a  proper  man  to  be  pitted  against  the 
distinguished  Senator,  and  to  feel  that  he  could  only 
bring  himself  to  an  attempt  to  answer  him  by  his 
appreciation  of  the  importance  of  the  questions  involved. 
His  whole  manner  indicated  candor  and  sincerity.  He 
appealed  to  his  hearers,  asking  them  questions,  and 
apparently  taking  them  into  his  confidence,  seeming  to 
consult  and  advise  with  them,  all  the  time  giving  the 
impression  that  he  was  feeling  his  way  and  also  giving 
the  impression  that  he  had  doubts  whether,  after  all, 
the  Senator  was  not  right,  and  that  after  discussing 
the  question  under  consideration,  if  it  should  appear 
that  he  himself  was  in  the  wrong  he  would  be  the 
first  to  acknowledge  it.  He  would,  as  the  lawyers 
say,  file  a  demurrer,  the  best  definition  of  which  is 
"  What  of  it  ?  "  That  is,  "  Suppose  that  this  declara 
tion  of  the  Senator  is  true,  what  does  it  amount  to  ?  " 


THE  LINCOLN-DOUGLAS  DEBATES  87 

And  then  he  would  reason  it  out  and  show  how  little 
there  was  in  it. 

Every  assertion  of  the  Senator  .  Jd  be  tested  in  the 
crucible  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  analysis,  and  when  it  came 
out  it  was  estimated  at  precisely  what  it  was  worth  and 
no  more. 

Curiously,  one  will  look  in  vain  through  all  the  de 
bates  for  a  high-sounding  period.  There  were  no  orna 
ments  of  rhetoric,  no  passages  that  are  now  sought 
for  repetition  or  declamation.  In  these  regards  those 
speeches  bear  no  comparison  with  those  of  Burke  or 
Pitt  or  Fox  or  Brougham,  nor  with  those  of  Webster 
and  Everett  and  Phillips  and  Ingersoll.  But  in  close 
reasoning,  in  the  logic  that  leads  to  irresistible  conclu 
sions,  it  may  be  doubted  whether  the  speeches  of  Lin 
coln  and  Douglas  have  ever  been  equalled. 

When  the  debates  were  first  entered  upon,  men  out 
side  of  Illinois  asked,  "  Who  is  this  man  Lincoln  ? " 
and  marvelled  that  he  could  have  the  temerity  to  at 
tempt  to  meet  in  such  a  conflict  a  colossal  character 
like  the  great  Senator.  At  first  his  speeches  were  pub 
lished  only  in  the  Illinois  papers.  As  the  debates  went 
on  the  whole  nation  became  intensely  interested ;  the 
speeches  of  both  were  telegraphed  to  all  the  leading 
journals  of  the  country  and  were  taken  up  and  read 
with  avidity  from  ocean  to  ocean.  In  every  house  and 
office  and  shop  and  mill,  men  were  found  reading  them 
and  discussing  them. 

"  Did  you  see  how  Lincoln  turned  the  tables  on  the 
Little  Giant  with  the  Dred  Scott  decision  ?  "  asked  one. 
"  Read  it !  Read  it  aloud  !  "  was  the  answer.  "  See  how 


88  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

Douglas  answered  him/'  cried  another;  and  it  was 
read.  "  The  Little  Giant  is  too  much  for  your  Spring 
field  lawyer,"  said  one.  "  The  Little  Giant  has  at  last 
found  his  match,"  another  replied.  "  It 's  all  very  well 
for  Lincoln  to  talk  his  abolition  doctrine  in  Northern 
Illinois,"  said  the  Douglas  men  after  the  Ottawa  and 
Freeport  debates.  "  You  just  wait  until  the  Little 
Giant  trots  him  down  into  Egypt,  and  you'll  laugh 
out  of  the  other  side  of  your  mouth." 

The  interest  in  the  debates  became  so  great  that  men 
forgot  what  position  the  two  champions  were  contend 
ing  for. 

The  immediate  result  of  the  campaign  was,  that, 
while  Lincoln  carried  the  State  on  the  popular  vote, 
Douglas  carried  a  majority  of  the  Legislature.  Senator 
Douglas  was  reflected,  and,  as  he  had  done  so  many 
times  before,  Mr.  Lincoln  went  back  to  his  law  office. 

It  may  be  said  of  the  Lincoln-Douglas  debates,  that 
the  ablest  men  of  the  nation  were  the  champions,  that 
the  great  prairies  were  the  audience  room,  that  the 
whole  American  people  were  the  audience,  thafc  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  was  the  platform, 
and  that  upon  the  elucidation  and  solution  of  the 
problems  involved  depended  the  fate  of  a  continent. 

When  the  Legislature  convened,  Senator  Douglas 
was  reelected  to  the  Senate. 

But  the  malignant  fight  made  upon  him  by  the 
administration  of  President  Buchanan  continued  and 
became  more  bitter.  It  became  understood  that  the 
only  avenue  to  political  preferment  was  through  hostil 
ity  to  Douglas.  Not  only  to  every  Democrat  who  could 


THE  LINCOLN-DOUGLAS  DEBATES  89 

be  induced  to  fight  Douglas  was  held  out  the  hope  of 
reward,  but  the  certainty  of  political  ostracism  con 
fronted  every  Democratic  office-holder  who  supported 
him.  He  had  at  the  same  time  to  contend  with  the 
new  Kepublican  party  that  was  just  beginning  to  be 
come  conscious  of  its  strength,  a  young  and  strong  and 
vigorous  party,  destined  to  dominate  the  policies  of  the 
Government  for  a  generation.  He  had  met  an  adver 
sary  who,  although  at  first  apparently  unequal  to  the 
mighty  responsibility,  proved  to  be  the  ablest  and  best 
equipped  champion  that  had  ever  appeared  against  him. 
With  courage,  fortitude,  and  persistence,  by  his  indom 
itable  will  and  transcendent  ability,  in  the  most  obsti 
nate  and  protracted  political  combat  that  had  ever 
been  fought  upon  the  prairies,  Senator  Douglas  had 
surmounted  every  obstacle  and  grandly  won. 


CHAPTER  XXVIII 
THE   PRESIDENCY 

WITH  the  prestige  of  his  victory,  the  Senator 
returned  to  Washington  to  enter  upon  the 
campaign  for  the  nomination  of  a  successor  to 
President  Buchanan,  which  was  already  begun. 

It  might  be  himself,  as  he  had  been  three  times  pre 
sented  in  national  conventions  for  the  Presidential 
nomination.  He  was  far  and  away  the  ablest  man  in 
his  party.  Now  it  seemed  that  he  might  succeed. 

The  Democrats  of  the  North  with  almost  perfect  una 
nimity  favored  him.  Had  the  Democrats  of  the  South 
supported  him  he  would  no  doubt  have  attained  the 
goal  of  the  ambition  of  his  life.  The  integrity  of  the 
Union  would  have  been  maintained,  and  there  would 
have  been  no  Civil  War. 

But  the  Democrats  of  the  South  would  not  support 
Senator  Douglas.  They  had  become  dissatisfied  with 
him  when  he  defeated  the  Lecompton  Constitution  and 
favored  the  admission  of  Kansas  into  the  Union  under 
an  organic  law  of  her  choice.  Following  with  intense 
interest  the  great  Senatorial  campaign  in  Illinois,  the 
Southern  politicians  were  indignant  at  his  doctrine  that 
a  Territory  could,  notwithstanding  the  Dred  Scott 
decision,  protect  itself  from  slavery  by  unfriendly  leg 
islation  and  the  withholding  police  regulations,  ideas 


THE  PRESIDENCY  91 

which  he  had  proclaimed  at  Bloornington,  repeated  at 
Springfield,  and  reiterated  at  Freeport.  As  the  same 
mad  rabble  that  had  shouted  "  Hosanna  to  the  King !  " 
afterwards  cried  "  Crucify  him  !  Crucify  him  !  "  so  those 
Southern  politicians,  under  the  leadership  of  an  admin 
istration  he  had  placed  in  power,  turned  against  Senator 
Douglas  with  the  fury  of  demons.  He  had  with  his 
own  hands  drafted  the  acts  organizing  most  of  the 
Territories,  —  Kansas,  Nebraska,  New  Mexico,  Utah, 
California,  and  others.  The  administration  had  come 
to  dominate  the  Senate ;  and  that  august  body,  by  an 
act  of  injustice  and  outrage  unprecedented,  summarily 
removed  Senator  Douglas  from  a  position  he  had  long 
held  and  honored,  the  chairmanship  of  the  Commit 
tee  on  Territories.  Scarcely  anything  could  be  more 
mortifying,  but  it  did  not  humiliate  the  great  statesman. 
He  was  still  great  and  proud  and  strong,  every  day 
demonstrating  his  superiority  to  those  who  sought  to 
overwhelm  him. 

While  at  the  South  the  men  of  his  party  would  not 
be  reconciled  to  him,  Democrats  of  the  North  rallied  to 
his  support,  determined  that  he  should  be  their  standard- 
bearer  in  the  approaching  national  political  campaign. 

After  his  reelection  to  the  Senate  by  the  Legislature 
of  Illinois  he  made  speeches  in  other  States,  both  North 
and  South. 

Curiously,  in  every  one  of  those  speeches  he  quoted 
from  what  had  come  to  be  known  as  Lincoln's  "  house 
divided  against  itself"  speech,  and  endeavored  to  show 
that  the  Government  could  endure  permanently  half 
slave  and  half  free ;  but  in  vain.  The  people  seemed 


92  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

to  have  settled  down  to  the  conviction  that  Mr.  Lincoln 
was  right  in  regard  to  this  matter,  and  the  more  often 
he  was  quoted  the  more  apparent  did  it  appear. 

In  the  course  of  his  speaking  Senator  Douglas  was 
invited  to  Winchester,  where  we  introduced  him  to  the 
reader  of  this  volume.  He  received  a  cordial  welcome 
from  the  citizens,  to  which  he  responded  as  follows  : 

"  To  say  that  I  am  profoundly  impressed  with  the 
keenest  gratitude  for  the  kind  and  cordial  welcome  you 
have  given  me,  in  the  eloquent  and  too  partial  remarks 
which  have  been  addressed  to  me,  is  but  a  futile  expres 
sion  of  the  emotions  of  my  heart.  There  is  no  spot  on 
this  vast  globe  which  fills  me  with  such  emotions  as 
when  I  come  to  this  place  and  recognize  the  faces  of 
my  old  and  good  friends  who  now  surround  me  and  bid 
me  welcome.  Twenty-five  years  ago,  I  entered  this 
town  on  foot,  with  my  coat  upon  my  arm,  without  an 
acquaintance  in  a  thousand  miles,  and  without  knowing 
where  I  could  get  money  to  pay  a  week's  board.  Here 
I  made  the  first  six  dollars  I  ever  earned  in  my  life, 
and  obtained  the  first  regular  occupation  I  ever  pur 
sued.  For  the  first  time  in  my  life  I  then  felt  that  the 
responsibilities  of  manhood  were  upon  me,  although  I 
was  under  age,  for  I  had  none  to  advise  with  and  knew 
no  one  upon  whom  I  had  a  right  to  call  for  assistance 
or  friendship.  Here  I  found  the  then  settlers  of  the 
country  my  friends;  my  first  start  in  life  was  taken 
here,  not  only  as  a  private  citizen,  but  my  first  election 
to  a  public  office  by  the  people  was  conferred  upon  me 
by  those  whom  I  am  now  addressing,  and  by  their 
fathers.  A  quarter  of  a  century  has  passed,  and  that 


THE  PRESIDENCY  93 

penniless  boy  stands  before  you  with  his  heart  full  and 
gushing  with  the  sentiments  which  such  associations  and 
recollections  necessarily  inspire." 

As  State  conventions,  called  to  elect  delegates  to  the 
coming  national  Democratic  convention,  were  held,  State 
after  State  elected  delegates  instructed  for  Douglas. 

Illinois,  his  own  State,  was  in  the  lead.  Her  con 
vention  was  held  so  early  as  the  fourth  of  January, 
1860.  That  convention  resolved  "  That  no  honorable 
man  can  accept  a  seat  in  the  national  Democratic  con 
vention  or  should  be  recognized  as  a  member  of  the 
Democratic  party  who  will  not  abide  the  decisions  of 
such  convention  and  support  its  nominees."  Resolved, 
"  That  the  Democracy  of  the  State  of  Illinois  is  unani 
mously  in  favor  of  Stephen  A.  Douglas  for  the  next 
Presidency,  and  that  the  delegates  from  this  State  are 
instructed  to  vote  for  him  and  make  every  honorable 
effort  to  procure  his  nomination." 

Indiana,  Ohio,  Minnesota,  Iowa,  Wisconsin,  Michigan, 
Maine,  New  Hampshire,  Vermont,  Connecticut,  New 
York,  and  other  States  followed  the  example  of  Illi 
nois  in  instructing  for  Senator  Douglas,  and  it  was 
evident  that  he  would  receive  a  large  majority  for 
the  nomination.1 

1  Afterwards  in  New  York  and  Illinois  delegations  were  made  up 
through  the  efforts  of  the  administration  opposed  to  Douglas,  but  they 
were  not  admitted  to  the  convention. 


CHAPTEK  XXIX 
THE   CHARLESTON   CONVENTION 

THE  Democratic  national  convention  met  at 
Charleston,  South  Carolina,  on  the  twenty-third 
of  April,  1860. 

From  the  first  it  was  evident  that  no  other  candidate 
could  receive  half  so  many  votes  in  the  convention  as 
Stephen  A.  Douglas.  And  why  should  he  not  be  nomi 
nated  ?  If  any  man  had  deserved  such  a  nomination  it 
was  he.  No  other  man  had  such  a  party  record. 

Eight  years  before,  in  1852,  Illinois  had  presented 
her  favorite  son  for  the  nomination  in  the  national 
Democratic  convention  held  at  Baltimore.  On  the  first 
ballot  he  received  only  the  twenty  votes  of  his  own 
State.  But  his  vote  ran  steadily  up  until  on  the 
twenty-ninth  ballot  he  received  ninety-one  votes ;  but 
Franklin  Pierce  was  nominated. 

In  1856,  four  years  before,  Douglas  was,  next  to  Mr. 
Buchanan,  the  leading  candidate  for  the  nomination, 
running  up  to  121  votes.  When  it  appeared  that  a 
majority  was  for  Mr.  Buchanan,  Douglas  telegraphed 
directing  the  withdrawal  of  his  name  in  order  to  pre 
serve  harmony  in  the  party  by  giving  Mr.  Buchanan  the 
requisite  two-thirds.  Now  he  himself  was  far  and  away 
the  leading  candidate  in  the  convention,  and  in  all  fair 
ness  and  justice  he  should  have  been  nominated. 


THE  CHARLESTON  CONVENTION          95 

Had  the  men  of  the  South  been  imbued  with  the 
sentiments  of  patriotism  that  animated  the  bosom  of 
the  great  Illinois  Senator,  had  they  been  as  magnani 
mous  as  he  had  been,  they  would  have  remained  in  the 
convention,  and  either  he  or  some  other  Democrat  would 
have  been  nominated  who  would  have  led  the  party 
to  victory.  Under  the  leadership  of  Senator  Douglas, 
while  Kansas  would  have  been  free,  there  would  have 
been  no  Civil  War  with  all  its  calamities  and  horrors, 
and  for  many  years  thereafter  the  institutions  of  the 
South  would  have  remained  in  statu  quo.  The  deca 
dence  of  slavery,  which,  even  then,  after  the  policy  of 
its  restriction  had  been  entered  upon,  would  have  been 
so  gradual  as  to  cause  but  little  anxiety  or  loss  even 
to  the  slaveholders. 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  since  the  close  of  the  Civil 
War  the  statesmen  and  people  of  the  South,  with  but 
few  exceptions,  have  manifested  a  feeling  of  magnanim 
ity  that  is  unparalleled  in  history.  Through  this,  and 
through  similar  emotions  on  the  part  of  the  North, 
sentiments  of  patriotism  are  animating  the  people  of 
both  sections  to  a  greater  degree  than  ever  before.  But 
at  that  time,  the  men  of  the  South  in  that  convention 
were  animated  by  no  such  emotions.  There  were  dele 
gates  from  the  South  in  that  convention  who  even  then 
favored  secession  and  were  willing  to  plunge  the  country 
into  the  horrors  of  civil  war,  if  that  were  necessary  for 
the  accomplishment  of  such  a  result.  With  men  hold 
ing  such  extreme  views  the  cry  was  "  Anything  to  beat 
Douglas!" 
Forty-five  of  these  extreme  Southern  delegates 


96  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

withdrew  from  the  convention,  which  may  properly 
be  regarded  as  the  initial  step  in  a  movement  toward 
secession  from  the  Union.  From  the  time  of  the  adop 
tion  of  what  were  known  as  the  "  Virginia  resolutions  in 
1798,"  declaring  that  "  whensoever  the  general  Govern 
ment  assumes  undelegated  powers,  its  acts  are  unauthor- 
itative,  void,  and  of  no  force/'  the  States  themselves 
being  the  judges  as  to  the  action  of  the  general 
Government,  there  had  been  threats  of  secession  when 
ever  the  action  of  the  general  Government  was  distaste 
ful  to  the  extremists  of  the  South,  but  they  had  never 
up  to  this  time  acted  in  a  manner  so  marked. 

It  may  be  said  that  the  withdrawal  of  those  forty- 
five  Southern  delegates  from  the  national  Democratic 
convention  was  the  first  overt  act  of  secession. 

It  was  decided  that  in  order  to  secure  nomination, 
two  thirds  of  the  full  delegation  (which  numbered  303) 
in  favor  of  a  candidate  should  be  necessary,  according 
to  the  time-honored  rule  of  the  Democratic  party,  the 
candidate  thus  requiring  202  votes. 

There  were  at  Charleston  fifty- seven  ballots,  in  the 
course  of  which  Douglas  ran  up  to  152|.  On  the  last 
twenty-one  of  those  ballots  Douglas  received  151|  votes. 
The  next  highest  on  the  last  vote  was  James  Guthrie 
of  Kentucky,  who  received  65|  votes.  R.  M.  T.  Hunter 
of  Virginia  received  sixteen,  Joseph  Lane  of  Oregon 
fourteen,  Daniel  S.  Dickinson  of  New  York  four,  and 
Jefferson  Davis  of  Mississippi  one. 

After  a  stormy  session  of  ten  days  the  convention 
adjourned,  to  meet  at  Baltimore.  The  friends  of  Doug 
las  hoped  against  hope  through  all  those  ten  days  of 


FRANKLIN  PIERCE 


THE  CHARLESTON  CONVENTION          97 

turmoil  at  Charleston  that  the  Southern  delegates 
would  finally  show  the  magnanimity  he  had  shown, 
and  give  Senator  Douglas  the  two-thirds  required  to 
nominate  him ;  but  they  could  not  be  induced  to  do  so. 

The  convention  adjourned  on  the  third  of  May  to 
meet  at  Baltimore  on  June  7.1 

The  opposition  to  Senator  Douglas  at  Baltimore  was 
even  more  bitter  than  at  Charleston.  A  large  number 
of  delegates  from  the  Southern  States  withdrew,  leav 
ing  the  convention  almost  entirely  in  the  hands  of  his 
supporters.  Upon  balloting,  Senator  Douglas  received 
181|  votes,  while  all  others  received  but  13  votes, 
and  he  was  declared  nominated. 

The  seceders  met  at  once  at  another  place,  organized 
a  rival  convention,  and  nominated  John  C.  Brecken- 
ridge  of  Kentucky  for  President. 

1  The  wits  of  that  day  propounded  the  question,  "  In  case  an  irresisti 
ble  force  comes  in  contact  with  an  immovable  body,  what  will  be  the 
result?  "  To  which  the  answer  was,  "  Adjourn  to  Baltimore." 


CHAPTER  XXX 

LINCOLN   AND  DOUGLAS  CANDIDATES   FOR 
PRESIDENT 

IN  the  meantime,  on  the  sixteenth  of  May,  the  Repub 
lican  convention  assembled  in  Chicago  and  nomi 
nated  Abraham  Lincoln  for  President;  and  the 
"  Constitutional  Union  party,"  which  had  assembled  at 
Baltimore  on  the  ninth  of  May,  nominated  John  Bell 
of  Tennessee. 

The  Democratic  party  which  had  long  been  in  con 
trol  of  the  Government  was  hopelessly  divided  upon 
sectional  lines.  The  Northern  Democrats  were  as 
united  as  ever  before,  and  supported  Douglas  with 
enthusiasm ;  but  the  Southern  Democrats,  upon  whom 
the  party  had  long  relied,  turned  against  him  and  sup 
ported  Breckenridge,y 

Notwithstanding  their  almost  unanimous  support  of 
his  bill  abrogating  the  Missouri  Compromise  line  and 
leaving  the  question  of  slavery  to  the  people  of  the  Ter 
ritories  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska,  they  could  not  be 
reconciled  to  his  carrying  out  the  principle  of  "  squatter 
sovereignty"  in  good  faith,  and  favoring  the  admission 
of  Kansas  with  a  Constitution  of  their  choice. 

Had  the  question  of  the  Presidency  been  left  to  the 
Democrats  of  the  North  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
notwithstanding  the  defection  of  the  Democrats  of  the 


LINCOLN  AND  DOUGLAS  CANDIDATES  FOR  PRESIDENT    99 

South,  Douglas  would  have  been  elected.  Never  had  a 
candidate  been  supported  with  such  earnestness  and 
enthusiasm  as  was  Douglas  supported  by  the  Demo 
crats  throughout  the  North.  He  was  their  idol.  No 
other  candidate  who  ever  appeared  before  the  people, 
not  even  Henry  Clay,  was  supported  by  his  followers 
with  such  unanimity  and  devotion.  He  had  such  an 
influence  over  them  and  such  a  hold  upon  them  that 
wherever  he  led  they  would  follow. 

But  the  great  question  was  not  left  to  Northern 
Democrats. 

/  The  Republican  party,  which  was  defeated  four  years 
before,  had  obtained  a  foothold  in  every  Northern  State. 
The  people  of  the  whole  nation  had  followed  the  great 
debates  held  upon  the  prairies  of  Illinois.  They  had 
become  convinced  that  the  Government  could  not 
endure  permanently  half  slave  and  half  free.  They 
had  been  led  to  the  conclusion  that  there  should  be  no 
more  slave  States,  that  slavery  must  be  placed  where 
the  public  mind  would  rest  in  the  belief  of  its  ultimate 
extinction. 

Abraham  Lincoln,  who  had  proclaimed  these  senti 
ments  and  expounded  them  in  such  clear  and  convinc 
ing  eloquence  as  to  carry  conviction,  was  the  Republican 
candidate  for  President.  The  Northern  people  became 
satisfied  that  he  of  all  men  would  be  able  to  carry  them 
into  effect.  As  the  campaign  proceeded  it  became  more 
and  more  apparent  every  day  that  the  tide  was  setting 
in  favor  of  Lincoln. 

Senator  Douglas,  mighty  as  he  had  always  been,  with 
the  prestige  of  never  having  been  defeated,  supported 


100  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

by  as  loyal  and  earnest  followers  as  ever  favored  a 
candidate,  put  forth  his  whole  strength  to  stem  the  tide. 
He  spoke  every  day  during  the  campaign  at  great 
centres  of  population.  Tens  of  thousands  of  people 
turned  out  to  hear  him  and  manifested  such  devotion 
to  him  as  had  never  been  shown  to  another  candidate. 
With  all  his  effort,  with  all  his  buffeting,  he  could  not 
stem  the  tide.  The  early  local  elections  in  Maine, 
Ohio,  Indiana,  Pennsylvania,  and  other  States  fore 
shadowed  his  certain  defeat  and  the  election  of  Mr. 
Lincoln. 

In  the  meantime,  while  Senator  Douglas  spoke  every 
day  Mr.  Lincoln  remained  quiet  at  his  home  in  Spring 
field.  He  said :  "  The  issue  is  really  between  Senator 
Douglas  and  me.  The  people  heard  and  read  our 
speeches  in  the  debates  two  years  ago,  and  are  fully  in 
formed  as  to  my  views";  and  it  was  impossible  to 
induce  him  to  say  one  word  after  he  had  given  out 
his  letter  of  acceptance,  further  than  to  express  his 
appreciation  of  the  courtesy  of  the  delegations  that 
called  upon  him. 

It  is  scarcely  possible  for  the  people  of  this  generation 
to  have  a  proper  appreciation  of  the  difficulties  under 
which  Senator  Douglas  labored  and  the  obstacles  with 
which  he  was  confronted  during  that  great  campaign. 
He  was  a  Democrat,  nominated  by  a  convention  which 
represented  the  great  majority  of  his  party ;  yet,  with 
all  the  bitterness  and  malice  of  revenge,  the  President 
and  the  whole  administration  (a  President  and  admin 
istration  to  whose  success  in  gaining  the  election  he 
had  contributed  more  than  any  other  human  being) 


LINCOLN  AND  DOUGLAS  CANDIDATES  FOR  PRESIDENT  101 

pursued  him  with  malignant  hatred  from  the  opening 
of  the  campaign  to  its  close. 

Every  possible  inducement  was  still  held  out  to 
Democrats  to  turn  against  Douglas.  The  best  offices 
within  the  gift  of  the  President  —  marshalships,  collect- 
orships,  postmasterships  —  were  offered  to  Democrats  as 
a  reward  for  turning  against  Douglas.  Democrats 
were  still  given  to  understand  that  support  of  Douglas 
closed  every  avenue  to  position,  but  that  they  might  be 
favored  if  they  should  make  a  record  of  antagonism  to 
Douglas.  To  the  everlasting  honor  and  glory  of  the 
Northern  Democrats  of  I860,  it  may  be  truthfully  said 
that  very  few  of  them  were  influenced  by  such  base 
threatenings  or  seductive  allurements.  With  compar 
atively  few  exceptions  none  were  influenced  by  them. 
They  rallied  to  the  support  of  the  great  Senator.  John 
C.  Breckenridge  was  the  administration  candidate  for 
President.  In  Illinois,  out  of  an  aggregate  vote  of 
339,693  Breckenridge  received  but  2,404. 

It  was  known  that  Douglas  could  receive  no  electoral 
votes  in  the  South,  and  that  there  could  be  no  possi 
bility  of  his  election.  Yet,  so  strong  was  his  hold 
upon  the  people  that  in  New  York  he  received  312,510 
votes;  in  Ohio  187,232  votes,  and  in  Illinois  160,215. 
Out  of  339,693  votes  cast  in  Illinois  in  1860  Lincoln's 
majority  over  Douglas  was  but  11,946.  Had  but  6,000 
in  Illinois  who  voted  for  Lincoln  voted  for  Douglas, 
Douglas  would  have  carried  the  State. 

Of  the  entire  popular  vote  Lincoln  received  1,866,452 
votes  and  Douglas  received  1,376,957.  / 

Never  did  another  great  statesman  stand  before  the 


102  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

world  in  a  position  so  extraordinary  as  was  that  of 
Senator  Douglas  at  that  time.  Regarded  as  the  fore 
most  American,  with  a  record  of  achievement  in  inau 
gurating  and  carrying  into  effect  policies  that  had 
surpassed  those  of  any  other  statesman  of  his  generation, 
-  a  man  whose  abilities  had  placed  him  at  the  front 
and  given  him  the  lead  in  every  important  public 
movement,  —  he  had,  almost  from  the  time  he  en 
tered  public  life,  always  been  successful. 

For  a  quarter  of  a  century  as  he  came  before  the 
people  he  had  never  been  defeated.  He  had  been  for 
years  the  autocrat  of  both  Houses  of  Congress.  He 
had  again  and  again  been  put  forward  in  national  con 
ventions  as  a  candidate  for  the  Presidency.  Yet  it  was 
becoming  every  day  during  the  campaign  more  and 
more  evident  that,  notwithstanding  his  transcendent 
abilities  and  his  resplendent  record  of  deeds  performed, 
Stephen  A.  Douglas  would  be  defeated  at  the  polls.  It 
was  evident  that  the  man  who  was  to  be  elected  was 
one  whose  name  was  scarcely  known  three  years  before 
beyond  the  limits  of  Illinois,  but  who  had  finally  be 
come  known  by  showing  himself  capable  of  meeting 
the  Little  Giant  and  coping  with  him  in  the  discussion  of 
measures  which  he  himself  had  originated  and  formula 
ted  and  carried  through  Congress  ;  a  man  as  ambitious 
as  he,  whose  whole  life  had  been  made  up  of  disap 
pointments  ;  a  man  who,  while  he  himself  enjoyed  all  of 
position  and  power  and  emoluments  that  his  State  could 
bestow,  was  so  often  and  so  constantly  defeated  that,  when 
fifty  years  old,  he  was  moved  to  cry  out,  "  My  life  has 
been  a  failure,  a  flat  failure  ";  a  man  whom  he  could 


JOHN  C.  BRECKENRIDGE 


LINCOLN  AND  DOUGLAS  CANDIDATES  FOR  PRESIDENT   103 

only  designate  as  "  a  quiet,  amiable,  intelligent  gentle 
man."  Such  a  man  was  to  attain  the  goal  of  ambition 
for  which  Douglas  had  all  his  life  been  struggling,  and 
which  had  seemed  to  be  almost  within  his  reach. 

Already  the  extremists  of  the  South  were  plotting  to 
plunge  their  people  into  the  vortex  of  secession.  They 
had  come  to  believe  that  through  defeating  Douglas  for 
the  Presidency  they  could  break  his  power,  and  that  he 
would  never  again  be  a  factor  in  public  affairs ;  and  so 
they  put  forth  all  their  strength  to  crush  him. 

Never  was  a  misguided  people  more  mistaken.  Every 
effort  they  made,  every  assault  upon  the  great  Senator, 
served  to  unite  the  party  at  the  North  in  devotion  to 
him.  While  by  turning  the  Southern  wing  of  the 
party  against  him  they  made  his  election  to  the  Presi 
dency  impossible,  their  assaults  upon  him  caused  the 
rank  and  file  of  the  party  at  the  North  to  rally  about 
him  with  such  unanimity  and  zeal  that  they  would 
follow  wherever  he  led. 

They  did  not  realize  it,  he  did  not  realize  it ;  but 
through  it  all  he  was  gathering  strength  and  power 
through  which  those  who  so  cruelly  conspired  against 
him  were  finally  overwhelmed  in  disaster  and  defeat 
and  death,  and  his  country  was  saved. 

Douglas  received  the  full  electoral  vote  of  only  one 
State,  the  State  of  Missouri,  which  gave  him  her  nine 
votes ;  he  received  less  than  half  the  electoral  votes  of 
one  other  State,  the  State  of  New  Jersey,  which  gave 
him  but  three  of  her  seven  electoral  votes,  making  but 
twelve  in  all.  Twelve  electoral  votes  were  all  that  the 
great  Senator  received. 


104  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

Lincoln  had  180  electoral  votes,  Breckenridge  seventy- 
two,  and  Bell  thirty-nine.  Of  the  popular  vote  Lincoln 
had  1,866,552. 

An  analysis  of  the  popular  vote  shows  that,  while 
Breckenridge  received  more  than  three  times  as  many 
electoral  votes  as  Douglas,  of  the  popular  vote  Douglas 
received  more  than  half  a  million  more  than  he. 

The  electoral  vote  of  Douglas  was  small,  on  account 
of  Lincoln's  vote  being  just  sufficient  in  several  States 
to  give  him  a  majority  and  carry  to  him  the  electoral 
vote.  With  the  absolute  certainty  of  his  defeat,  which 
was  apparent  before  the  election,  it  is  remarkable  that 
Douglas  should  have  received  the  enormous  aggregate 
of  1,376,957  votes. 


CHAPTER  XXXI 

THE  PATRIOTISM  OF  SENATOR  DOUGLAS 

/ 

SENATOR  DOUGLAS   devoted  the   remainder  of 
his  life  to  efforts  to  save  the  Union.     He  was 
then  of  the  opinion  that  war  would  finally  result 
in  its  dissolution. 

On  January  3,  two  months  after  the  election  of  Mr. 
Lincoln,  in  a  speech  in  the  Senate  he  said : 

"  If  war  comes  it  must  have  an  end  at  some  time ; 
and  that  termination  I  apprehend  will  be  a  final  sepa 
ration.  Whether  the  war  last  one  year,  seven  years,  or 
thirty  years,  the  result  must  be  the  same — a  cessation 
of  hostilities  when  the  parties  become  exhausted,  and  a 
treaty  of  peace  recognizing  the  independence  of  each 
section.  The  history  of  the  world  does  not  furnish  an 
instance  where  war  has  raged  for  a  series  of  years 
between  two  classes  of  states  divided  by  a  geographical 
line  under  the  same  national  Government,  which  has 
ended  in  reconciliation  and  reunion." 

Convinced  that  a  result  so  appalling  would  be  inevi 
table,  he  devoted  all  his  energies  toward  effecting  a 
compromise  and  averting  war. 

Being  catechized  while  speaking  at  Norfolk,  Virginia, 
during  the  political  campaign,  as  to  whether  the  elec 
tion  of  Lincoln  would  justify  secession,  he  frankly  told 
the  Southern  people  that,  should  Lincoln  be  chosen 


106  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

President,  he  should  not  consider  that  a  cause  for  resis 
tance,  but  that  he  should  adhere  to  and  uphold  the 
Union.  While  seeking  the  support  of  the  Southern 
people,  he  gave  them  to  understand  that,  should 
they  rebel,  they  would  have  no  support  nor  sympathy 
from  him ;  they  knew  his  position,  and  therefore 
there  could  be  no  misunderstanding  after  the  result  of 
the  election  was  announced. 

Committees   were  appointed,  —  one   of    thirteen,   of 
which  Senator  Douglas  was  a  member,  and  another  con 
sisting  of  one  from  each  State ;  and  conventions  were 
held  to  formulate  plans  of  compromise,  in  the  hope,  by 
these  measures,  to  avert  war.     Upon  the  invitation  of  the 
Legislature  of  Virginia  by  a  unanimous  vote,  a  national 
peace  conference  assembled.      In  this  conference  many 
plans  of    compromise   were   formulated   and   proposed 
which  received  the  support  of  patriotic  men.     The  most 
noteworthy   plan   of    compromise   was   that   presented 
in  the  Senate  by  the  venerable  John  J.  Crittenden  of 
Kentucky.     He  proposed  as  a  plan  of  settlement  amend 
ments  to  the  Constitution,  by  which  the  Missouri  Com 
promise  line  be  restored  and  slavery  be  forever  excluded 
north  of  that  line  and  recognized  as  existing  south  of 
that  line ;  and  which  declared  that  slavery  should  not 
be  interfered  with  by  Congress,  but  should  be  protected 
as  property  by  all  the  departments  of  the   Territorial 
Government    forever;    and    providing   that    Congress 
should  have  no  power  to  abolish  slavery  in  the  District 
of  Columbia,   nor  in   places  under   its  exclusive  juris 
diction  ;  that  it  should  have  no  power  to  prohibit  or 
hinder  the  transportation  of  slaves  from  one  State  to 


THE  PATRIOTISM  OF  SENATOR  DOUGLAS     107 

another ;  that  it  should  make  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law 
more  effective,  etc.  With  proposals  of  compromise 
Senator  Douglas  was  in  sympathy,  and  he  gave  such 
as  could  be  considered  his  earnest  support. 

It  is  almost  pathetic  in  reading  the  proceedings  of 
Congress  to  see  with  what  earnestness  Senator  Douglas 
strove  to  bring  about  a  compromise  of  some  kind  and 
avert  war.  He  begged  and  pleaded  with  Republicans 
of  the  North  and  Democrats  of  the  South  by  concessions 
to  adjust  their  differences,  each  side  yielding  a  little. 
He  offered  even  to  surrender  his  doctrine  of  "  popular 
sovereignty"  and  to  restore  the  Missouri  Compromise 
line  on  the  terms  proposed  in  the  Crittenden  compromise. 

In  his  appeal  to  the  Republicans  of  the  North  he  said : 

"  Why  cannot  you  Republicans  accede  to  the  reestab- 
lishment  and  extension  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  line  ? 
You  have  sung  paeans  enough  in  its  praise  and  uttered 
imprecations  and  curses  enough  upon  my  head  for  its 
repeal,  one  would  think,  to  justify  you  now  in  claiming 
a  triumph  for  its  reestablishment.  If  you  are  willing  to 
give  up  your  party  feelings  —  to  sink  the  partisan  in  the 
patriot  —  and  help  me  to  reestablish  and  extend  that  line 
as  a  perpetual  bond  of  peace  between  the  North  and  the 
South,  I  will  promise  you  never  to  remind  you  in  the 
future  of  your  denunciation  of  the  Missouri  Compromise 
so  long  as  I  was  supporting  it,  and  of  your  praises  of 
the  same  measure  when  we  removed  it  from  the  statute 
book  after  you  had  caused  it  to  be  abandoned  by  render 
ing  it  impossible  for  us  to  carry  it  out." 

The  Republicans  in  Congress  presented  the  olive 
branch  and  made  every  concession  that  was  possible. 


108  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 

Through  the  withdrawal  of  Southern  members  the4 
House  of  Representatives  had  become  Republican  by 
a  considerable  majority. 

The  committee  of  thirty-three,  which  had  devoted 
itself  patiently  and  earnestly  to  the  work  of  formu 
lating  a  plan  of  compromise,  reported  through  Mr. 
Corwin  of  Ohio  a  series  of  resolutions,  the  most  im 
portant  of  which  were  in  substance  as  follows : 

Recognizing  slavery  as  it  then  existed  in  fifteen  of 
the  United  States  by  the  usages  and  laws  of  those 
States,  and  declaring  that  we  recognize  no  authority, 
legally  or  otherwise,  outside  of  a  State  where  it  so 
exists,  to  interfere  with  slaves  or  slavery  in  disregard 
of  the  rights  of  their  owners  or  the  peace  of  society; 

Recognizing  the  justice  and  propriety  of  a  faithful 
execution  of  the  Constitution  and  the  laws  made  in 
pursuance  thereof  on  the  subject  of  fugitives  from 
service  or  labor,  and  discountenancing  of  all  mobs  or 
hindrances  to  the  execution  of  such  laws ;  and  that  the 
faithful  observance  on  the  part  of  all  the  States  of  all 
their  constitutional  obligations  to  each  other  and  to  the 
Federal  Government  is  essential  to  the  peace  of  the 
country ;  requesting  each  State  to  revise  its  laws,  and, 
if  necessary,  so  to  amend  the  same  as  to  secure,  without 
legislation  by  Congress,  to  citizens  of  other  States,  trav 
elling  through  it,  the  same  protection  as  citizens  of 
such  State  enjoy,  etc. 

Resolutions  such  as  these  formulated  by  the  com 
mittee  of  thirty-three  were  presented  in  the  House  of 
Representatives  and  passed  in  a  then  Republican  House 
by  an  overwhelming  majority,  the  substance  of  which 


JOHN  J.  CRITTENDEN 


cS^-  I-'^'»^/YW" 
•'     OF  THE   ^ 

I  UNIVERSITY 

OF 

S^LIFO 


THE  PATRIOTISM  OF  SENATOR  DOUGLAS  109 

was  to  be  adopted,  by  a  convention  properly  called, 
into  the  Constitution.  "  Both  Houses  united  in  pass 
ing  the  joint  resolve  of  said  committee  of  thirty-three, 
which,  ratified  by  the  required  proportion  of  the  States, 
would  have  precluded  forever  any  action  of  Congress 
adverse  to  the  perpetuation  of  slavery  in  such  States 
as  should  desire  such  perpetuation." 

It  was  also  proposed  to  admit,  immediately,  as  a 
State,  New  Mexico,  which  then  included  Arizona,  a  Ter 
ritory  in  which  slavery  already  existed. 

These  provisions  would  have  given  the  South  a  firm 
hold  upon  nearly  every  acre  of  our  present  territory 
where  she  could  rationally  hope  to  plant  slavery. 


CHAPTER  XXXII 

STRENUOUS  EFFORTS  TO  EFFECT  A  COMPROMISE 

THE  Republicans  could  not,  under  their  platform 
upon  which  Mr.  Lincoln  was  elected  and  under 
their  solemn  pledges,  permit  slavery  to  be  intro 
duced  into  territory  where  it  did  not  then  exist,  but 
they  could  consistently  pledge  that  it  should  remain 
in  States  and  Territories  where  it  did  then  exist  and 
this  they  consented  to  do.  Had  the  South  accepted  this 
olive  branch  they  could  have  continued  slavery  indefi 
nitely  without  its  being  disturbed. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  the  tendency  of  the  civilization 
of  the  age  was  hostile  to  slavery,  and  that  the  time 
would  have  come  when  it  would  have  died  out.  Be 
sides,  by  its  being  restricted  it  was  placed,  in  the  lan 
guage  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  where  "  the  public  mind  could 
rest  in  the  belief  of  its  ultimate  extinction  " ;  but  this 
would  have  been  so  gradual  as  to  have  entailed  com 
paratively  little  pecuniary  loss  to  the  slaveholders.  In 
the  light  of  subsequent  events,  the  slaveholders  by 
refusing  to  accept  these  too  generous  terms,  made 
the  most  colossal  blunder  ever  made  by  a  misguided, 
unreasonable,  and  infatuated  people. 

The  Republicans,  as  every  intelligent  Southerner 
knew,  were  so  committed  to  the  doctrine  of  "no 
more  slave  territory"  that  they  could  not  if  they 


STRENUOUS  EFFORTS  TO  EFFECT  A  COMPROMISE   111 

would,  admit  slavery  to  any  locality  where  it  did 
not  then  exist. 

A  clear  and  terse  statement  of  the  attitude  and  the 
limitations  of  the  Republicans  who  had  supported  Mr. 
Lincoln  in  the  campaign  for  his  election  will  be  found 
in  a  speech  of  the  Hon.  Benjamin  F.  Wade  of  Ohio, 
in  the  Senate.  In  the  course  of  his  speech  Mr.  Wade 
said  : 

"  I  tell  you  frankly  that  we  did  lay  down  the  prin 
ciple  in  our  platform  that  we  would  prohibit,  if  we  had 
the  power,  slavery  from  invading  another  inch  of  free 
soil  of  this  Government.  I  have  argued  it  to  half  a 
million  of  people,  and  they  stood  by  it.  They  have 
commissioned  me  to  stand  by  it,  and  so  help  me,  God,  I 
will !  I  say  to  you,  while  we  hold  this  doctrine  to  the 
end,  there  is  no  Republican  or  convention  of  Repub 
licans,  or  Republican  paper  that  pretends  to  have 
any  right  in  your  States  to  interfere  with  your  pecul 
iar  and  local  institutions.  On  the  other  hand,  our 
platform  repudiates  the  idea  that  we  have  any  idea, 
or  harbor  any  ultimate  intention,  to  invade  or  inter 
fere  with  your  institutions  in  your  own  States.  .  .  . 

"  I  have  disowned  any  intention  on  the  part  of  the 
Republican  party  to  harm  a  hair  of  your  heads.  We 
hold  to  no  doctrine  that  can  possibly  work  you  any 
inconvenience,  any  wrong,  any  disaster.  We  have  been 
and  shall  remain  faithful  to  all  the  laws  —  studiously 
so.  It  is  not,  by  your  own  confessions,  that  Mr.  Lin 
coln  is  expected  to  commit  any  overt  act  by  which  you 
may  be  injured.  You  will  not  even  wait  for  any, 
you  say,  but,  by  anticipating  that  the  Government  may 


112  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

do  you  an  injury,  you  will  put  an  end  to  it  — 
which  means,  simply  and  squarely,  that  you  intend  to 
rule  or  ruin  this  Government." 

There  were  statesmen  in  the  South,  notably  Alexan 
der  H.  Stephens  of  Georgia,  who  raised  their  voices  to 
save  the  Union.  While  he  decided  to  go  with  his  State 
if  she  withdrew  from  the  Union,  and  finally  did  go  with 
his  State,  he  opposed  secession  with  earnestness  and 
impassioned  eloquence,  and  strove  from  the  first  to 
breast  the  storm.  He  pictured  the  calamities  that 
must  come  as  the  result  of  secession  even  if  it  should 
succeed,  in  language  that  afterwards  has  seemed  pro 
phetic.  It  was  all  in  vain.  The  pacific  overtures  of 
the  Republicans  were  received  with  derision. 

It  is  interesting  to  the  student  to  follow  the  course 
of  Senator  Douglas  during  that  eventful  winter.  In 
season  and  out  of  season  he  argued  against  secession 
and  pleaded  for  the  Union,  addressing  himself  with  the 
same  earnestness  to  the  Republicans  of  the  North  and 
the  Democrats  of  the  South.  It  was  in  a  great 
degree  through  his  efforts  that  the  generous  proposi 
tions  were  made  to  the  South  by  the  party  that  had 
been  successful  in  the  election. 

His  arguments  against  secession  were  unanswerable 
and  conclusive, 

"  I  do  not  think  that  I  can  find  a  more  striking  illus 
tration  of  this  doctrine  of  secession,"  said  Senator  Doug 
las  when  the  question  was  being  discussed,  "  than  was 
suggested  to  my  mind  when  reading  the  President's 
last  annual  message.  My  attention  was  first  arrested 
by  reading  the  remarkable  passage,  that  the  Federal 


BENJAMIN  F.  WADE 


STRENUOUS  EFFORTS  TO  EFFECT  A  COMPROMISE      113 

Government  had  no  power  to  coerce  a  State  back  into 
the  Union  if  she  did  secede ;  and  my  admiration  was  un 
bounded  when  I  found  a  few  lines  afterwards,  a  recom 
mendation  to  appropriate  money  to  purchase  Cuba.  It 
occurred  to  me  instantly  what  a  brilliant  achievement 
it  would  be  to  pay  Spain  three  hundred  million  dollars 
for  Cuba  and  immediately  admit  the  Island  into  the 
Union  as  a  State,  and  let  her  secede  and  reannex  her 
self  to  Spain  the  next  day,  when  the  Spanish  Queen 
would  be  ready  to  sell  the  Island  again  for  half  price 
according  to  the  gullibility  of  the  purchaser." 

This  is  but  one  specimen  of  the  arguments  he  used 
in  the  discussions  of  the  questions  involved,  in  which 
no  one  took  a  more  prominent  part. 


CHAPTER  XXXIII 

THE   SOUTHERN   CONFEDERACY 

IN  the  meantime  the  "  Cotton  "States,"  led  by  South 
Carolina,  one  by  one  adopted  ordinances  of  seces 
sion  from  the  Union  and  proceeded  to  organize 
into  a  Confederacy  to  establish  an  independent  Govern 
ment.  Seven  States  —  South  Carolina,  Florida,  Missis 
sippi,  Alabama,  Georgia,  Louisiana,  and  Texas  —  by 
their  delegates  assembled  at  Montgomery,  Alabama, 
and  on  the  ninth  of  February  proceeded  to  adopt  a 
framework  of  government,  calling  it  "  The  Confederate 
States  of  America." 

Jefferson  Davis  of  Mississippi  was  unanimously 
elected  President,  and  Alexander  H.  Stephens  of 
Georgia  Vice-President. 

Mr.  Davis  made  twenty-five  speeches  when  en  route 
to  Montgomery,  the  character  of  which  may  be  judged 
from  the  following  extract  from  that  made  at  Ste 
venson,  Alabama: 

"Your  border  States  will  gladly  come  into  the 
Southern  Confederacy  within  sixty  days,  as  we  will  be 
their  only  friends.  England  will  recognize  us,  and  a 
glorious  future  is  before  us.  The  grass  will  grow  in  the 
Northern  cities,  where  the  pavements  have  been  worn 
off  by  the  tread  of  commerce.  We  will  carry  war 
where  it  is  easy  to  advance,  where  food  for  the  sword 


THE  SOUTHERN  CONFEDERACY         115 

and  torch  await  our  armies  in  the  densely  populated 
cities;  and  though  they  [the  enemy]  may  come  and 
spoil  our  crops,  we  can  raise  them  as  before,  while  they 
cannot  rear  the  cities  which  took  years  of  industry  and 
millions  of  money  to  build." 

Mr.  Davis  was  inaugurated  as  President  of  the 
Southern  Confederacy  on  the  eighteenth  of  February. 

In  the  meantime,  through  treachery  on  the  part  of 
President  Buchanan's  Secretary  of  War,  the  munitions 
of  war,  the  arms  and  ammunition  of  the  United  States, 
were  quietly  being  transferred  into  the  Confederate 
States  from  Government  ordnance  and  storehouses. 

In  his  work  entitled  "  The  Lost  Cause,  a  New  South 
ern  History  of  the  War  of  the  Confederates,"  Mr. 
Edward  A.  Pollard,  the  historian  of  the  Confederacy, 
says  of  the  situation  when  the  Confederate  Government 
was  inaugurated  : 

"  Fort  Moultrie  and  Castle  Pinckney  had  been  occupied 
by  the  South  Carolina  troops ;  Fort  Pulaski,  the  defence 
of  Savannah,  had  been  taken;  the  arsenal  at  Mount 
Yernon,  Alabama,  with  twenty  thousand  stand  of  arms, 
had  been  seized  by  the  Alabama  troops ;  Fort  Morgan, 
in  Mobile  Bay,  had  been  taken ;  Forts  Jackson  and  St. 
Philip  and  Pike,  near  New  Orleans,  had  been  taken  by 
the  Louisiana  troops ;  the  Pensacola  Navy  Yard  and 
Forts  Barrancas  and  McRea  had  been  taken,  and  the 
siege  of  Fort  Pickens  commenced ;  the  Baton  Rouge 
Arsenal  had  been  surrendered  to  the  Louisiana  troops ; 
the  New  Orleans  Mint  and  Custom  House  had  been 
taken;  the  Little  Rock  Arsenal  had  been  seized  by 
the  Arkansas  troops,  and,  on  the  eighteenth  of  February, 


116  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 

General  Twiggs  had  transferred  the  military  posts  and 
public  property  in  Texas  to  the  State  authorities." 

Mr.  Pollard  further  says  : 

"  Mr.  Floyd  of  Virginia,  when  Secretary  of  War 
under  Mr.  Buchanan's  adminstration,  had,  by  a  single 
order,  effected  the  transfer  of  115,000  stand  of  arms 
from  the  Springfield  Armory  and  Watervliet  Arsenal 
(at  Troy,  New  York)  to  different  arsenals  at  the 
South." 

Fortified  as  she  thus  was  for  the  event  of  war,  there 
was  still  another  element  in  the  impending  crisis  that 
gave  the  South  more  confidence  in  the  success  of  the 
mighty  conspiracy  than  the  possession  of  forts  and 
arsenals  and  armories  and  munitions  of  war.  This 
confidence  was  inspired  by  the  division  of  the  people 
of  the  North.  That  the  North  was  divided,  and  appar 
ently  hopelessly,  was  so  evident  as  to  make  assurance 
doubly  sure  that,  even  if  attempted,  an  effort  to  subdue 
the  Confederates  could  involve  them  in  but  little 
difficulty. 

They  had,  not  without  reason,  become  convinced  that 
the  great  Democratic  party  of  the  North  would  never 
permit  the  raising  and  equipping  of  an  army  to  march 
against  them.  On  the  other  hand,  the  expressions  of 
Mr.  Lincoln,  the  President  elect,  had  been  so  moderate 
that  they  had  become  satisfied  that  he  would  follow  the 
sentiment  expressed  by  Horace  Greeley  in  the  leading 
Republican  newspaper  of  the  country,  which  had  advised 
that  they  be  permitted  to  "  depart  in  peace." 

As  the  sequel  proved,  the  Southern  people  had  not 
properly  estimated  the  character  of  Abraham  Lincoln. 


THE  SOUTHERN  CONFEDERACY         117 

They  finally  came  to  realize  that  his  appeals  to  them  to 
listen  to  reason,  and  the  presenting  of  the  olive  branch 
in  his  speeches  on  the  way  to  Washington  —  that  his 
pledges  in  his  inaugural  that  he  would  enforce  the 
Fugitive  Slave  Law  and  all  the  guarantees  of  the  Con 
stitution  that  slavery  in  the  States  would  not  be  inter 
fered  with,  and  all  his  pathetic  appeals  to  the  people 
of  the  South  —  did  not  mean  that  he  would  quietly 
look  on  and  permit  them  to  destroy  the  Government 
without  an  effort  to  protect  and  defend  it. 

As  they  heard  and  read  sentiments  uttered  through 
out  the  North  by  Democrats,  they  did  not  properly 
estimate  the  potentiality  and  transcendent  ability  of 
another  Illinois  statesman,  whom  they  had  spurned 
and  sought  to  trample  under  their  feet. 


CHAPTER   XXXIV 
A   SOLID   SOUTH   AND   A   DIVIDED   NORTH 

THEY  had  reason  to  believe  that  the  great  Demo 
cratic   party   of   the   North   would,    if  coercion 
should  be  attempted,  take  up  their   cause  and 
through  a  "fire  in  the  rear"  ensure  their  success. 

By  recalling  some  of  the  sentiments  expressed  at  that 
time  it  will  be  seen  with  how  much  reason  they  were 
justified  in  their  reliance  upon  the  Democrats  of  the 
North.  TJie  Bangor  [Maine]  Union  declared,  that  "  the 
difficulties  between  the  North  and  the  South  must  be 
compromised,  or  the  separation  of  the  States  shall  ~be 
peaceable.  If  the  Republican  party  refuse  to  go  the  full 
length  of  the  Crittenden  amendment  —  which  is  the 
least  the  South  can  or  ought  to  take  —  then,  here  in 
Maine,  not  a  Democrat  will  be  found  who  will  raise  an 
arm  against  his  brethren  of  the  South.  From  one  end 
of  the  State  to  the  other,  let  the  cry  of  the  Democracy 
be,  Compromise  or  peaceable  separation." 

The  Detroit  Free  Press,  of  February  3  or  4,  said : 
"  We  can  tell  the  Republican  Legislature  and  the  Re 
publican  administration  of  Michigan  and  the  Republican  '> 
party,  everywhere  one  thing ;  that,  if  the  refusal  to  re 
peal  the  Personal  Liberty  laws  shall  be  persisted  in,  and 
if  there  shall  not  be  a  change  in  the  present  seeming 
purpose  to  yield  to  no  accommodation  of  the  national 


A  SOLID  SOUTH  AND  A  DIVIDED  NORTH  H() 

difficulties,  and  if  troops  be  raised  in  the  North  to  march 
against  the  people  of  the  South,  a  fire  in  the  rear  ivill 
be  opened  upon  such  troops,  which  will  either  stop  their 
march  altogether,  or  wonderfully  accelerate  it. 

"  In  other  words,  if,  in  the  present  position  of  the 
Republican  party  toward  the  national  difficulties,  war 
shall  be  waged,  that  war  will  be  fought  in  the  North. 
We  warn  it,  that  the  conflict  which  it  is  precipitating 
will  not  be  with  the  South,  but  with  tens  of  thousands 
of  people  in  the  North.  When  civil  war  shall  come,  it 
will  be  here  in  Michigan,  and  here  in  Detroit,  and  in 
every  Northern  State." 

On  the  last  day  of  January,  1861,  probably  the  strong 
est  and  most  imposing  assemblage  of  delegates  that  ever 
up  to  that  time  had  convened  in  the  State  of  New  York, 
a  Democratic  State  convention  called  to  consider  the 
impending  peril  of  disunion,  was  held  at  Albany. 

While  in  that  convention  there  were  a  few  voices 
raised  against  secession,  declaring  it  to  be  treason  that 
should  be  put  down,  such  sentiments  as  the  following 
were  received  with  rapturous  applause  : 

Alexander  B.  Johnson  declared  :  "  We  are  certain  that 
the  will  of  a  large  portion  of  the  citizens  of  this  State 
is  against  any  armed  coercion  on  the  part  of  the  general 
or  State  Government  to  restore  the  Union  by  civil 
war.  ...  If,  therefore,  we  now  attempt  to  strengthen 
the  Government  by  coercive  action,  which  all  men 
know  its  founders  would  have  rejected  with  scorn,  we 
are  the  revolutionists  and  not  the  South." 

Governor  Seymour  held  the  Republicans  entirely  re 
sponsible  for  the  situation,  urged  compromise,  and  said : 


120  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

"  Let  us  see  if  successful  coercion  by  the  North  is  less 
revolutionary  than  successful  secession  by  the  South. 
Shall  we  prevent  revolution  by  being  engaged  in  over 
throwing  the  principles  of  our  Government  ?  " 

Mr.  James  S.  Thayer  said  :  "  If  a  revolution  of  force 
is  to  begin,  it  shall  be  inaugurated  at  home.  .  .  .  When 
six  States,  by  the  deliberate,  formal,  authoritative  action 
of  their  people,  dissolve  their  connection  with  the  Gov 
ernment,  and  nine  others  say  that  that  dissolution  shall 
be  final  if  the  seceding  members  so  choose,  announcing 
to  the  North,  '  No  interference  !  We  stand  between  you 
and  them ' ;  can  you  bring  them  back  ?  No  !  .  .  .  What, 
then,  is  the  duty  of  the  State  of  New  York  ?  What  shall 
we  say  to  our  people  when  we  come  to  meet  this  state 
of  facts  ?  That  the  Union  must  be  preserved  ?  But  if 
that  cannot  be,  what  then?  Peaceable  separation." 

In  the  course  of  an  unusually  earnest  address  in  the 
convention  opposing  the  idea  of  coercion,  Chancellor 
Eeuben  H.  Wai  worth  exclaimed  : 

"  Civil  war  will  not  restore  the  Union,  but  will  defeat 
forever  its  reconstruction.  It  would  be  as  brutal,  in 
my  opinion,  to  send  men  to  butcher  our  own  brothers 
of  the  Southern  States,  as  it  would  be  to  massacre 
them  in  the  Northern  States." 

The  editorials  which  have  been  quoted  from  Northern 
Democratic  papers  are  similar  to  those  which  appeared 
in  many  Democratic  papers  in  other  States,  East  and 
West ;  and  the  speeches  made  in  the  great  Democratic 
convention  of  New  York  are  similar  in  character  to 
those  made  by  leading  Democrats  of  other  Northern 
States.  It  was  frequently  declared  in  Illinois  that  if 


REUBEN  H.  WALWORTH 


A  SOLID  SOUTH  AND  A   DIVIDED  NORTH  121 

coercion  should  be  attempted,  the  war  would  begin  at 
Springfield  and  be  fought  down  through  the  State.  It 
is  not  at  all  remarkable  that  the  secessionists  were  led 
by  such  declarations  to  believe  that  the  North  would  be 
divided,  and  that  the  Confederacy  they  had  inaugurated 
at  Montgomery  with  Jefferson  Davis  at  its  head  need 
have  no  apprehension  of  serious  difficulty  in  disrupting 
the  Union ;  nor  was  it  remarkable  that  they  should  have 
declared  exultingly,  as  they  did  declare  when  the  report 
came  of  the  proceedings  of  the  great  New  York  conven 
tion  :  "  If  your  President  should  attempt  coercion,  he 
will  have  more  opposition  at  the  North  than  he  can 
overcome." 

Senator  Douglas  sought  to  the  very  last  moment  to 
avertjwar.  He  was  criticised  for  his  efforts  to  effect 
this  purpose  through  overtures  to  the  South ;  and  there 
were  those  who,  because  of  the  proposals  he  made,  ap 
prehended  that  his  sympathies  were  so  enlisted  in  behalf 
of  the  Southern  people  that  he  would  sustain  them  in 
case  of  a  conflict  of  arms. 

He  also  pleaded  with  and  begged  the  Republicans  of 
the  North  to  yield  to  the  demands  of  the  South  to  such 
a  degree  as  to  satisfy  them.  As  he  said  subsequently, 
he  went  to  the  "  very  extreme  of  magnanimity  "  in  his 
concessions  to  the  South.  It  was  all  of  no  avail.  Sup 
ported  as  they  believed  themselves  to  be  by  the  great 
mass  of  the  Democrats  of  the  North,  the  Southern  people 
would  seriously  consider  no  proposition  that  did  not  in 
volve  the  recognition  of  the  Confederate  Government 
already  established  at  Montgomery,  and  the  dissolution 
of  the  Union. 


122  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

There  was  no  question  as  to  the  legality  of  the 
election  of  Mr.  Lincoln  to  the  Presidency.  His  major 
ity  in  the  electoral  college  was  so  great  as  to  preclude 
any  possibility  of  cavil  as  to  his  having  been  chosen  by 
the  American  people  as  provided  by  the  Constitution 
for  the  office.  On  his  way  to  Washington  he  appeared 
before  great  audiences  to  express  his  views  as  to  the 
impending  crisis  and  the  complications  which  threat 
ened  disruption  of  the  Government ;  and  every  one 
of  his  speeches  breathed  sentiments  of  good  will  and 
generosity  to  the  people  of  the  South. 

Notwithstanding  all  this,  the  bitterness  and  hostility 
against  the  Government  were  augmented  rather  than 
diminished.  So  intense  did  this  become  that  his  friends 
became  apprehensive  for  Mr.  Lincoln's  personal  safety. 
That  there  was  reason  for  this  apprehension  was  proved 
by  subsequent  events. 


CHAPTER  XXXV 
INAUGURATION   OF   PRESIDENT  LINCOLN 

VOLUMES  have  been  written  upon  Mr.  Lincoln's 
first  inauguration  and  his  inaugural  address. 
The  writer  was  present  upon  this  great  occa 
sion  and  was  in  a  position  to  realize  how  serious  was 
the  situation. 

Feverish  anxiety  pervaded  all  classes  lest  violence 
should  be  shown  against  the  President  elect.  Malevo 
lence  was  manifested  a  few  years  later,  which  resulted 
in  his  assassination. 

So  apprehensive  of  danger  were  the  authorities  of  the 
Government  that  precautions  were  taken  by  stationing 
troops  that  could  be  made  available  at  a  moment's 
notice,  and  thoroughly  armed  detectives  in  citizen's 
clothing  were  scattered  through  the  great  audience. 

When  the  President  elect  was  introduced,  as  he 
looked  around  for  a  place  to  deposit  his  hat,  Senator 
Douglas  stepped  forward  and  took  it  and  held  it,  looking 
over  the  audience  with  an  expression  in  his  counte 
nance  the  significance  of  which  could  not  be  misunder 
stood;  it  indicated  more  clearly  and  eloquently  than 
could  have  been  expressed  in  words  a  declaration  that 
the  man  who  stood  before  them  and  was  about  to  take 
the  oath  of  office  was  the  President  of  the  United  States, 
and  as  such  must  be  respected  and  obeyed.  It  was  an 


124  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

act  on  the  part  of  the  great  Senator  of  which  history 
does  not  furnish  a  parallel.  Never  before  was  such  a 
demonstration  of  acquiescence  in,  and  obedience  to,  the 
mandate  of  the  people.  Never  before  did  the  defeated 
candidate  for  the  Presidency  manifest  such  loyalty  and 
devotion  to  his  successful  rival;  never  before  was  an 
emergency  which  demanded  such  a  demonstration  ;  and 
never  before  was  one  met  in  so  simple  and  effectual  a 
manner.  It  indicated  that  whatever  other  Democrats 
of  the  North  might  do,  there  was  no  uncertainty  in  the 
awful  crisis  as  to  the  position  of  the  greatest,  mightiest, 
and  most  illustrious  of  them  all. 

President  Lincoln's  inaugural  address  disappointed 
many  men  of  his  party,  and  was  not  received  with 
favor  by  the  men  of  the  South.  Its  habitual  tone  was 
apologetic.  He  said  in  the  course  of  his  address :  "  I 
shall  take  care,  as  the  Constitution  itself  expressly  en 
joins  upon  me,  that  the  laws  of  the  Union  shall  be 
faithfully  executed  in  all  the  States,"  and  added,  "I 
trust  that  this  will  not  be  regarded  as  a  menace,  but 
only  as  the  declared  purpose  of  the  Union  that  it  will 
constitutionally  defend  and  maintain  itself." 

Instead  of  resenting  and  denouncing  the  action  of  the 
secessionists  in  withdrawing  from  the  Union  and  organ 
izing  a  separate  and  independent  Government,  instead 
of  threatening  to  put  the  secessionists  down,  he  pleaded 
with  them  and  even  begged  them  to  come  back  into  the 
Union.  He  declared  that  the  power  confided  to  him 
would  be  used  simply  to  "  hold,  occupy,  and  possess  the 
property  and  places  belonging  to  the  Government  and 
collect  the  duties  and  imports;  but  beyond  what  may 


INAUGURATION  OF  PRESIDENT  LINCOLN  125 

be  necessary  for  these  objects  there  will  be  no  invasion, 
no  using  of  force  against  or  among  the  people  any 
where  " ;  and  he  went  so  far  as  to  declare  that  "  where 
hostility  against  the  United  States  shall  be  so  great  and 
so  universal  as  to  prevent  competent  resident  citizens 
from  holding  the  Federal  offices,  there  will  be  no  at 
tempt  to  force  obnoxious  strangers  upon  the  people  for 
that  object/' 

He  said  that  the  mails,  unless  repelled,  would  continue 
to  be  furnished  in  all  parts  of  the  Union.  He  pledged 
himself  and  his  administration  that  there  should  be  no 
interference  with  slavery  in  the  States  where  it  existed, 
and  that  he  would  enforce  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law.  He 
indicated  that  he  would  sanction  an  amendment  to  the 
Constitution  providing  that  the  "  Government  shall 
never  interfere"  with  slavery  in  the  States.  His 
strongest  argument  went  to  prove  that  no  State  could 
legally  withdraw  from  the  Union  without  the  consent 
of  the  other  States  that  were  parties  to  the  compact. 

The  address  abounded  in  such  declarations  as  "  To 
those  who  love  the  Union  may  I  not  speak  ?  "  "  Think 
if  you  can  of  a  single  instance  in  which  a  plainly 
written  provision  of  the  Constitution  has  ever  been 
denied  !  "  "  My  countrymen,  one  and  all,  think  calmly ! 
Nothing  valuable  can  be  lost  by  taking  time."  "  Such 
of  you  as  are  now  dissatisfied  still  have  the  old  Con 
stitution  unimpaired."  "  There  is  no  reason  for  precipi 
tate  action."  "  Intelligence,  patriotism,  Christianity,  and 
a  firm  reliance  on  Him  who  has  never  yet  forsaken  this 
favored  land  are  still  competent  to  adjust  in  the  best 
way  all  our  present  difficulties."  "  In  your  hands,  my 


126  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 

dissatisfied  fellow  countrymen,  and  not  in  mine,  is  the 
momentous  issue  of  civil  war." 

The  address  concluded  with  one  of  the  most  earnest, 
eloquent,  and  pathetic  appeals  that  was  ever  uttered. 

"  I  am  loath  to  close.  We  are  not  enemies,  but 
friends.  Though  passion  may  have  strained,  it  must 
not  break,  our  bonds  of  affection.  .  .  .  The  mystic 
chords  of  affection,  stretching  from  every  battlefield 
and  patriotic  grave  to  every  living  heart  and  hearth 
stone  all  over  this  broad  land,  will  yet  swell  the  chorus 
of  the  Union  when  touched,  as  surely  they  will  be, 
by  the  better  angels  of  our  nature." 

There  was  much  criticism  by  Republicans  upon  his 
pledging  himself  not  to  invade  the  territory  of  those 
who  had  organized  a  Government  in  hostility  to  the 
United  States,  and  that  he  would  not  use  force  against 
them,  and  that  where  there  was  hostility  against  the 
United  States  such  as  to  prevent  resident  citizens  from 
holding  Federal  offices  there  would  be  no  attempt  to 
force  obnoxious  strangers  upon  them;  which,  it  was 
said,  amounted  to  a  pledge  to  appoint  men  in  rebellion 
to  collect  the  revenues  and  hold  the  Federal  offices. 
There  were  many  who  thought  that,  instead  of  ap 
pealing  to  and  begging  the  secessionists  to  come  back, 
he  should  have  told  them  plainly  that  the  Govern 
ment  would  put  them  down. 

Some  declared  that  the  situation  was  no  better  than 
it  was  under  Buchanan.  There  was  much  denunci 
ation  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  taking  so  much  pains  to  pledge 
slave-holders  who  were  in  arms,  that  the  Fugitive 
Slave  Law  should  be  enforced,  and  even  suggesting 


INAUGURATION  OF  PRESIDENT  LINCOLN  127 

that  the  Constitution  be  so  amended  as  to  preclude 
forever  interference  with  slavery  in  the  States.  Cer 
tain  men  who  had  supported  Mr.  Lincoln  went  so  far 
as  to  declare  that  it  would  have  been  better  to  elect 
Douglas;  that  he  would,  instead  of  going  down  upon 
his  knees  to  Jeff  Davis  and  his  Confederate  Govern 
ment,  have  marshalled  an  army  and  marched  against 
them  and  put  them  down. 

In  the  light  of  subsequent  events  it  is  the  general  con 
census  of  opinion  that  that  inaugural  address  of  Presi 
dent  Lincoln  was  one  of  the  most  judicious,  and  wise, 
and  able  state  papers  that  was  ever  promulgated. 

There  were  other  Southern  slave-holders  besides 
those  of  the  cotton  States  who  had  organized  the 
secession  Government  at  Montgomery.  These  others 
were  slave-holders  of  the  border  States.  There  were 
tens  of  thousands  of  people  of  the  North  who  were  not 
then  ready  to  enter  upon  a  policy  of  coercion.  More 
than  any  one  else,  Mr.  Lincoln  realized  the  potenti 
ality  of  these  elements,  and  he  knew  that  it  would  be 
fatal  to  the  Federal  Government  to  drive  them  from 
his  support.  This,  as  the  event  proved,  was  a  matter 
of  the  utmost  importance.  By  his  prudence  and  mag 
nanimity  he  held  these  elements  from  antagonizing 
him. 

An  important,  perhaps  the  most  important,  effect  of 
such  a  generous  conciliatory  address  was,  that  it 
proved  to  the  whole  civilized  world  that  there  was 
no  reason  nor  justification  for  the  secessionists  to  turn 
against  the  Government ;  that  they  had  no  just  cause 
for  rebellion ;  that  not  one  wrong  had  been  inflicted 


128  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 

upon  them,  nor  one  constitutional  right  invaded ;  that 
the  door  was  still  open  for  them  to  return  to  their 
allegiance,  and  that  they  would  be  received  with 
open  arms. 

These  statesmanlike  views  of  President  Lincoln  and 
the  proofs  he  made  had  a  great  influence  among  the 
peoples  of  the  civilized  world  who  gave  the  Govern 
ment  their  sympathy,  and,  more  than  once,  their  sup 
port,  during  the  war  which  followed. 

Many  times  and  often  during  the  great  war  patri 
otic  men  who  became  impatient  with  President  Lincoln, 
and  went  so  far  as  to  denounce  him,  found  and 
acknowledged  that,  after  all,  he  had  been  right  and 
they  wrong;  of  this,  his  first  inaugural  and  the  man 
ner  in  which  it  was  at  first  received  was  a  conspicu 
ous  example. 

Notwithstanding  all  the  declarations  and  assurances 
of  President  Lincoln,  the  misguided  men  of  the  Con 
federacy,  impelled  by  zeal  and  fanaticism  which  finally 
resulted  in  overwhelming  them,  began  hostilities  against 
the  Union.  Had  they,  as  did  President  Lincoln,  pa 
tiently  awaited  events  and  not  precipitated  war,  with 
the  divisions  in  the  Democratic  party  and  the  general 
and  growing  hatred  of  coercion,  North  as  well  as 
South,  the  sympathy  of  the  country  at  large  and  of 
the  civilized  world  might  have  in  a  great  degree  con 
tinued  with  them. 

They  could  not  restrain  themselves;  and  the  result 
was  that  on  the  twelfth  of  April,  but  little  more  than 
a  month  after  Mr.  Lincoln's  inauguration,  Fort 
Sumter  was  fired  upon. 


JEFFERSON   DAVIS 


CHAPTER  XXXVI 
A  MOMENTOUS   CONFERENCE 

WHILE  the  guns  were  yet  reverberating  in 
Charleston  Harbor  a  great  statesman  was 
seen  making  his  way  through  the  streets  of 
Washington  to  the  Executive  Mansion.  It  was  Stephen 
A.  Douglas.  It  was  his  first  visit  to  the  President 
since  he  had  entered  upon  the  office.  The  President's 
voice  was  heard  in  most  cordial  welcome  as  the  door 
closed  which  closeted  together  the  two  greatest  states 
men  and  most  potential  personages  upon  the  continent. 
Each  in  his  own  person  represented  the  character,  the 
intelligence,  the  patriotism  of  a  great  political  party. 
Less  than  six  months  before  that  eventful  day  the 
loyal  men  of  the  country  had  assembled  at  their  places 
of  voting  and  expressed  their  choice  for  one  or  the 
other  of  these  two  men  for  chief  magistrate  of  their 
country,  to  direct  its  destinies.  For  the  one,  Abraham 
Lincoln,  were  cast  1,866,552  votes;  for  the  other, 
Stephen  A.  Douglas,  were  cast  1,376,957  votes.  The 
aggregate  vote  cast  for  both  was  over  three  millions. 
All  the  votes  for  these  two  were  cast  by  men  who 
had  attained  to  majority,  men  who  were  the  devoted 
followers  of  one  or  the  other  of  these  two  statesmen, 
and  who  were  disposed  to  follow  them  wherever  they 
might  lead.  It  was  claimed  at  that  time,  as  was  no 


130  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 

doubt  the  case,  that  the  supporters  of  Douglas  were 
more  devoted  to  him  than  had  ever  been  the  followers 
of  any  other  American  statesman. 

This  meeting  of  Abraham  Lincoln  and  Stephen  A. 
Douglas,  held  while  the  rebel  shot  and  shell  were 
falling  upon  the  walls  of  Fort  Sumter,  was  the  most 
momentous  conference  ever  held  upon  the  western 
hemisphere.  Its  importance  and  far-reaching  signifi 
cance  may  be  estimated  by  its  results.  From  that  hour 
the  patriotic  men  of  the  nation,  without  regard  to 
political  affiliation,  became  united  in  a  common  pur 
pose  to  put  down  rebellion  and  save  their  country. 

When  Senator  Douglas  emerged  from  the  Executive 
Mansion  he  was  driven  at  once  to  the  office  of  the  asso 
ciated  press  where  he  dictated  a  telegram  announcing 
that  he  had  pledged  to  the  President  his  most  earnest 
and  active  cooperation  toward  putting  down  rebellion 
and  saving  his  country  in  the  awful  crisis,  and  calling 
upon  every  friend  he  had  to  come  forward  and  do  the 
same.  This  was  especially  addressed  to  men  of  his 
party  who  had  supported  him  in  his  candidacy  for  the 
Presidency,  and  it  was  of  the  nature  of  a  summons. 
In  all  the  leading  newspapers  of  the  United  States  from 
Maine  to  California  it  appeared  simultaneously  with 
the  dreadful  news  of  the  attack  upon  Fort  Sumter. 
"  One  blast  upon  his  bugle  horn  was  worth  a  million 


men." 


There  were  still  men  in  the  Democratic  party  who 
were  old  enough  to  have  been  familiar  with  the  patri 
otic  public  services  and  resplendent  achievements  of  the 
Senator  during  his  whole  career.  They  recalled  how 


A  MOMENTOUS  CONFERENCE          131 

he  had  vindicated  their  hero  Andrew  Jackson,  whose 
memory  was  still  among  the  most  sacred  of  those  they 
treasured;  they  recalled  how  he  had  fought  for  the 
"  fifty-four  forty  or  fight "  doctrine,  in  which  they  all 
believed,  when  the  Oregon  question  was  before  the  peo 
ple  ;  they  recalled  how  desperately  he  had  struggled  to 
breast  the  tide  of  the  uprising  of  1840  which  engulfed 
and  almost  overwhelmed  the  Democratic  party;  they 
had  not  forgotten  how  ably  and  eloquently  he  had 
championed  the  movement  in  favor  of  the  war  with 
Mexico,  which  resulted  in  our  acquisition  of  a  vast  re 
gion  including  California,  New  Mexico,  and  Arizona; 
they  remembered  how  he  had  championed  American 
interests  upon  the  whole  western  hemisphere  by  assail 
ing  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty ;  they  remembered  how 
he  had  proclaimed  the  doctrine  of  popular  sovereignty, 
and  his  heroic  battle  against  forcing  slavery  upon  the 
people  of  Kansas. 

The  Democrats  of  the  North  had  not  become  recon 
ciled  and  never  could  become  reconciled  to  the  barba 
rous  and  inhuman  treatment  inflicted  by  the  Southern 
delegates  upon  their  great  leader  in  the  national  Demo 
cratic  convention  at  Charleston  and  Baltimore,  although 
he  himself  had  twice  before  withdrawn  his  name  in 
national  conventions  to  preserve  harmony  in  the  party. 


CHAPTER  XXXVII 
DOUGLAS  AROUSES  HIS  PARTY  IN  THE  NORTH 

AND  so,  upon  reading  the  summons  of  their  great 
leader  whom  they  had  followed  for  so  many 
years,  Democrats  were  as  eager  in  response  to 
his  summons  to  answer  to  the  call  of  the  President  for 
troops  as  were  the  men  of  his  own  party.  Side  by  side, 
shoulder  to  shoulder,  Democrats  and  Republicans  took 
their  places  in  the  ranks  and  marched  away  to  suffer 
and  fight  and  die  for  their  country.  When  their  ranks 
were  depleted,  others  took  their  places  and  filled  up  the 
decimated  companies. 

As  had  always  been  the  case  in  the  career  of  the 
great  Senator,  the  rank  and  file  of  the  party  obeyed  his 
summons  and  the  leaders  found  it  necessary  for  them 
selves  to  follow  the  popular  mandate. 

Leading  Democrats,  some  of  whom,  in  their  zeal  to 
manifest  their  goodwill  toward  their  Southern  brethren, 
had  even  gone  so  far  as  to  censure  the  Senator,  when 
they  came  to  realize  how  promptly  and  with  what 
unanimity  the  rank  and  file  of  the  Democratic  party 
responded  to  his  call,  themselves  joined  in  the  general 
acclaim  and  united  with  their  patriotic  party  friends  in 
support  of  the  Government.  Fortunately  there  were 
few  reporters  to  take  down  and  preserve  their  hasty  and 
treasonable  expressions,  and  they  are  remembered  only 


DOUGLAS  AROUSES  HIS  PARTY   IN  THE  NORTH        133 

by  those  with  whom  the  memories  of  long  ago  still 
linger,  who,  like  them,  are  rapidly  passing  away.  Some 
of  those  who  were  most  indiscreet  entered  the  Union 
army,  and  proved  themselves  to  be  the  noblest  and 
bravest  of  patriots,  and  some  few  of  them  rose  to 
high  position. 

There  is  no  better  illustration  of  the  potentiality  of 
Douglas  with  the  rank  and  file  of  his  party  than  that 
presented  by  the  most  southern  of  the  Illinois  congres 
sional  districts,  known  as  "  Egypt,"  which  in  the  Presi 
dential  election  had  given  Douglas  nearly  twenty 
thousand  majority  over  Lincoln.  It  was  said  that 
that  district  furnished  to  the  Union  army  more  men, 
in  proportion  to  population,  than  any  other  district 
in  the  United  States. 

After  that  memorable  telegraphic  summons  of  Sena 
tor  Douglas,  calling  upon  the  Democrats  to  enlist  them 
selves  in  the  cause  of  their  country,  there  was  no  more 
talk  in  Illinois  of  the  war  beginning  at  Springfield  and 
being  fought  down  through  the  State. 

The  author  of  these  pages  was  at  that  time  in  a  posi 
tion  to  observe  and  appreciate  what  was  going  on 
among  public  men  and  in  public  affairs.  It  seemed  to 
him  that  the  great  Senator  had  a  premonition  that, 
whatever  he  would  be  able  to  do  further  in  service  of 
his  country  must  be  entered  upon  and  accomplished 
speedily.  He  seemed  to  feel  that  there  was  a  great 
work  for  him  to  do,  and  that  it  must  not  be  delayed. 

From  the  hour  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  election  he  had  la 
bored  incessantly  to  avert  war.  His  appeals  to  the 
victorious  Republicans  on  the  one  hand,  and  to  the  men 


134  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

of  the  South  on  the  other,  to  make  concessions  in  the 
hope  of  effecting  a  compromise,  were  pathetic.  He 
offered  as  has  been  said  to  surrender  his  own  cherished 
policies,  even  going  so  far  as  to  propose  to  restore  the 
Missouri  Compromise  line,  if  that  would  reconcile  the 
conflicting  interests.  He  seemed  to  realize  to  a  greater 
degree  than  any  other  American  statesman  how  much 
of  sacrifice  and  suffering  and  sorrow  must  come  from  a 
conflict  of  arms.  He  took  part  in  every  effort  for  con 
ciliation,  in  the  committees  and  other  organizations  cre 
ated  in  the  hope  of  compromise. 

When  the  flame  of  war  burst  forth  and  hostilities 
actually  began,  he  seemed  to  realize  as  did  no  other 
American  statesman,  that  there  could  be  no  further  hope 
of  compromise  and  that  there  would  be  no  end  to  the 
conflict  until  the  Confederates  were  overpowered  and 
overwhelmed  in  defeat ;  and  that  all  the  power  of  the 
government  must  be  exerted  by  a  united  and  deter 
mined  and  persistent  effort  to  accomplish  this  result. 

Immediately  after  the  memorable  conference  with 
President  Lincoln  and  the  sending  out  of  that  inspiring 
telegraphic  proclamation  summoning  his  supporters  to 
arms,  Senator  Douglas  went  before  the  people  and  ap 
peared  at  great  mass  meetings  exhorting  his  friends  to 
rally  to  the  support  of  the  Government. 


STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 


CHAPTER  XXXVIII 

SPEAKS  AT  SPRINGFIELD  AND  CHICAGO 

AT  Springfield,  Illinois,   the  capital  of  his  own 
State,   he   was   called   upon   to    address    both 
Houses  of  the  Legislature  in  joint  session.    The 
chamber  was  crowded  to  its  utmost  capacity,  and  a  vast 
number  could  not  gain  admission.    The  Hon.  Shelby  M. 
Cullom,  who  still  survives  in  full  intellectual  vigor,  was 
then  Speaker  of  the  House   of   Representatives.     He 
presided  and  introduced  the  Senator,  who  spoke  with 
more  emotion  than  he  had  ever  before  manifested,  and 
with  great  earnestness. 

After  calling  attention  to  the  widespread  conspiracy 
to  overthrow  the  Government,  and  the  boast  of  the 
"  Secretary  of  War  of  the  so-called  Confederate  States, 
that  by  the  first  of  May  the  rebel  army  will  be  in  pos 
session  of  the  Federal  capital,"  and  after  stating  that 
"  our  great  river  has  been  closed  to  the  commerce  of 
the  world."  and  that  "  piratical  flags  under  pretended 
letters  of  marque  are  afloat  on  the  ocean,"  he  said, 
"  the  only  question  for  us  is,  whether  we  shall  wait 
supinely  for  the  invaders,  or  rush  as  one  man  for  the 
defence  of  that  we  hold  most  dear."  He  said  also : 
"So  long  as  hope  of  peace  remained,  I  pleaded  and 
implored  for  compromise.  Now  that  all  else  has  failed 
there  is  but  one  course  left,  to  rally  as  one  man  to  the 


136  STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS 

flag  of  Washington,  Jefferson,  Hamilton,  Madison,  and 
Franklin."  He  went  on  to  show  that  not  a  single  act 
had  been  done  to  justify  this  mad  attempt  to  overthrow 
the  Republic ;  that  not  one  right  of  the  South  had  been 
invaded ;  that  no  attempt  had  been  made  to  interfere 
with  slavery  where  it  existed  ;  that  the  Fugitive  Slave 
Law  was  enforced  ;  and  that  there  was  no  excuse  for, 
and  that  there  could  be  no  palliation  of,  "  the  prodigious 
crime  against  the  freedom  of  the  world,  to  attempt  to 
blot  the  United  States  out  of  the  map  of  Christendom." 
He  said  to  his  old  friends,  "  You  will  be  false  to,  and 
unworthy  of,  your  principles  if  you  allow  political  de 
feat  to  convert  you  into  traitors  to  your  native  land." 

The  climax  of  the  address,  to  which  the  Senator  led 
up,  was  the  exclamation,  "  The  shortest  way  now  to 
peace  is  the  most  stupendous  and  unanimous  prepara 
tion  for  war." 

From  Springfield  the  Senator  proceeded  to  Chicago, 
where  he  spoke  in  the  great  "  wigwam "  in  which 
President  Lincoln  was  nominated. 

It  was  pathetic  for  him  to  say  :  "If  war  must  come, 
if  the  bayonet  must  be  used  to  maintain  the  Constitu 
tion,  I  say  before  God  that  my  conscience  is  clear.  I 
have  struggled  long  for  a  peaceful  solution  of  the  diffi 
culty.  I  have  not  only  tendered  these  States  what  was 
theirs  of  right,  but  I  have  gone  to  the  very  extreme  of 
magnanimity. 

"  The  return  we  receive  is  war ;  armies  marching 
upon  our  capitol ;  obstructions  to  our  navigation ;  let 
ters  of  marque  to  invite  pirates  to  prey  upon  our  com 
merce  ;  a  concerted  movement  to  blot  out  the  United 


S.   M.   CULLOM 


SPEAKS  AT  SPRINGFIELD  AND  CHICAGO  137 

States  of  America  from  the  map  of  the  globe.  The 
question  is,  Are  we  to  maintain  the  country  of  our 
fathers,  or  allow  it  to  be  stricken  down  by  those  who, 
when  they  can  no  longer  govern,  threaten  to  destroy. 

"  What  cause,  what  excuse  do  disunionists  give  us 
for  breaking  up  the  best  Government  upon  which  the 
sun  of  heaven  ever  shed  its  rays  ?  They  are  dissatisfied 
with  the  result  of  the  Presidential  election.  Did  they 
never  get  beaten  before  ?  Are  we  to  resort  to  the  sword 
when  we  get  beaten  at  the  ballot  box  ?  I  understand 
that  the  voice  of  the  people,  expressed  in  the  mode 
appointed  by  the  Constitution,  must  command  the 
obedience  of  every  citizen.  They  assume  on  the  elec 
tion  of  a  particular  candidate  that  their  rights  are 
not  safe  in  the  Union.  What  evidence  do  they  pre 
sent  of  this  ?  I  defy  any  man  to  show  any  act  on 
which  it  is  based.  What  act  has  been  omitted  to  be 
done  ?  I  appeal  to  these  assembled  thousands,  that,  so 
far  as  the  constitutional  rights  of  slave-holders  are  con 
cerned,  nothing  has  been  done  and  nothing  omitted  of 
which  they  can  complain. 

"There  has  never  been  a  time  since  the  days  that 
Washington  was  inaugurated  first  President  of  the 
United  States,  when  the  rights  of  the  Southern  States 
stood  firmer  under  the  laws  of  the  land  than  they  do 
now.  There  never  was  a  time  when  they  had  not  as 
good  a  cause  for  dissension  as  they  have  to-day.  What 
good  cause  have  they  now  which  has  not  existed  under 
every  administration  ?  The  only  complaints  that  I  have 
heard  have  been  of  the  too  vigorous  and  faithful  en 
forcement  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law. 


138  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

"  The  slavery  question  is  a  mere  excuse.  The  elec 
tion  of  Lincoln  is  a  mere  pretext.  The  present  seces 
sion  movement  is  the  result  of  an  enormous  conspiracy, 
formed  more  than  a  year  since,  formed  by  leaders  in  the 
Southern  Confederacy,  more  than  twelve  months  ago. 

"  But  this  is  no  time  for  the  detail  of  causes.  The 
conspiracy  is  now  known.  Armies  have  been  raised, 
war  is  levied  to  accomplish  it.  There  are  only  two 
sides  to  the  question.  Every  man  must  be  for  the 
United  States  or  against  it.  There  are  to  be  no  neu 
trals  in  this  war,  only  patriots  and  traitors. 

"  Thank  God,  Illinois  is  not  divided  on  this  question. 
I  know  they  expected  to  present  a  united  South  against 
a  divided  North.  They  hoped  that  in  the  Northern 
States  party  questions  would  bring  civil  war  between 
Democrats  and  Republicans,  when  the  South  would  step 
in  with  her  cohorts,  aid  one  party  to  conquer  the  other, 
and  then  make  easy  prey  of  the  victors.  Their  scheme 
was  carnage  and  civil  war  in  the  North. 

"  There  is  only  one  way  to  defeat  this.  In  Illinois 
it  is  being  so  defeated  by  closing  up  the  ranks.  War 
will  thus  be  prevented  upon  our  own  soil.  While  there 
was  a  hope  for  peace  I  was  ready  for  any  reasonable 
sacrifice  or  compromise  to  maintain  it. 

"  Illinois  has  a  proud  position  —  united,  firm,  deter 
mined  never  to  permit  the  government  to  be  destroyed. 
I  express  to  you  my  conviction  before  God  that  it  is 
the  duty  of  every  American  citizen  to  rally  around  the 
flag  of  his  country." 

For  many  years  every  public  expression  of  Senator 
Douglas  had  been  printed  and  read  far  and  wide.  The 


SPEAKS  AT  SPRINGFIELD  AND  CHICAGO  139 

interest  in  what  he  then  said  was  more  intense  than 
ever  before.  His  utterances  appeared  in  every  public 
newspaper  of  the  United  States.  The  fact  that  he  had 
so  recently  been  the  standard-bearer  of  his  party  gave 
his  views  character  and  potentiality  that  were,  with  the 
Democratic  party  East  and  West,  authoritative.  This 
was  the  case  in  New  England,  the  Middle  States,  in  the 
great  West,  on  the  Pacific  coast,  everywhere.  Despite 
what  The  Bangor  Union  might  now  say,  the  Democrats 
of  Maine  were  loyal  to  Senator  Douglas  and  the  Union. 
The  Detroit  Free  Press,  The  Chicago  Times,  and  other 
papers  of  similar  tendencies  were  shorn  of  any  power 
for  harm,  as  were  also  Democratic  conventions  such  as 
had  been  held  but  a  few  weeks  before  at  Albany.  The 
revulsion  of  feeling  had  its  influence  upon  newspapers, 
conventions,  and  orators,  to  such  an  extent  as  to  tone 
down  their  fulminations  to  such  a  degree  that  they 
could  make  no  more  mischief. 


CHAPTER  XXXIX 

THE    NORTH    UNITED 

THE  Confederacy  very  soon  came  to  realize  that 
they  could  expect  no  sympathy  from  the  great 
Democratic  party  of  the  North,  which  had  sup 
ported  Douglas  for  the  Presidency;  that,  instead  of 
the  war  being  fought  upon  Illinois,  Michigan,  New 
York,  or  New  England  soil,  it  would  be  fought  upon 
their  own  fields,  and  about  their  own  firesides  ;  that 
instead  of  there  being  a  "  fire  in  the  rear  "  of  the  Union 
army,  the  fire  would  be  against  them,  from  guns  in  the 
hands  of  Northern  Democrats. 

Speaking  of  the  situation  at  that  time,  E.  A.  Pollard 
says,  in  "  The  Lost  Cause  "  : 

"  What  was  most  remarkable  in  this  display  of  popu 
lar  fury  was  its  sudden  and  complete  absorption  of  the 
entire  Democratic  party  in  the  North,  which  had  so 
long  professed  regard  for  the  rights  of  the  Southern 
States,  and  even  sympathy  with  the  first  movements  of 
secession.  This  party  now  actually  rivalled  the  aboli 
tionists  in  their  expressions  of  fury  and  revenge.  They 
not  only  followed  the  tide  of  public  opinion,  but  sought 
to  ride  on  its  crest." 

There  was  no  more  talk,  nor  even  suggestion,  of 
peaceable  separation. 

What   might   have    been    the   effect   upon   Douglas 


EDWARD  A.  POLLARD 


THE  NORTH  UNITED  141 

men,  had  their  great  leader  held  aloof,  or  even  hesi 
tated,  in  the  great  crisis,  was  a  matter  of  speculation 
at  the  time. 

Many  of  them  would  no  doubt  finally  have  been 
found  upon  the  side  of  patriotism  and  of  the  Union ; 
but  there  would  have  been  no  such  unanimity  and 
spontaneity  and  enthusiasm  as  that  which  was  mani 
fested  when  he  called. 

It  must  be  admitted  that  there  were  men  in  the 
North  whose  sympathy  and  support  were  given  to  the 
South,  who  were  called  "  Copperheads."  While  they 
made  some  considerable  trouble  to  the  Union  men, 
their  numbers  were  not  so  great  as  to  cause  alarm. 
Few,  if  any,  of  those  pernicious  pests  were  Douglas 
Democrats. 

As  he  stood  before  that  vast  assemblage  in  Chicago, 
Senator  Douglas  was  the  mightiest  and  most  potential 
figure  in  the  galaxy  of  American  statesmen.  An^  ex 
treme  partisan  during  all  his  mature  life,  adored  and 
execrated  as  had  never  been  another  American,  here 
patriotic  men  of  every  shade  of  opinion  and  of  every 
political  party  listened  with  breathless  interest  for  every 
word  that  fell  from  his  lips,  and  vied  with  each  other 
to  do  him  honor.  Such  enthusiastic  greeting,  such  rap 
turous  applause,  had  never  been  accorded  to  another 
public  man  since  the  days  of  the  fathers.  Every  one 
who  took  part  in  the  great  demonstration  felt  that  the 
Senator's  utterances  were  the  expression  of  the  emo 
tions  of  all  the  patriotic  people  of  the  great  nation,  from 
ocean  to  ocean,  who  would,  had  it  been  possible,  have 
been  present  to  unite  in  the  glad  acclaim.  Patriotic 


142  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 

men  who  then  saw  the  great  Senator  for  the  last 
time  recalled  in  later  days  the  splendors  of  that  great 
ovation;  and  as  they  realized  that  he  had  been  with 
drawn  forever  from  their  view  and  that  they  would 
never  again  see  his  familiar  face  and  form,  they  felt 
that  they  had  witnessed  his  transfiguration. 


CHAPTER  XL 
DOUGLAS'S   LAST  ADMONITION 

FROM  that  mighty  impassioned  assemblage  the 
great  Senator  was  driven  to  the  old  Tremont 
House,  his  home,  which  he  never  afterwards  left. 

The  strain  upon  his  physical  and  mental  faculties 
was  too  much  for  him.  On  the  third  day  of  June,  1861, 
only  a  few  days  after  this,  his  last  appearance  before 
his  fellow-citizens  whom  he  loved  so  dearly,  and  whom 
he  had  served  so  faithfully,  he  died.  But  he  had  lived 
to  see  tens  of  thousands  of  his  devoted  followers  take 
their  places  in  the  ranks  of  the  Union  army,  and  march 
away  to  fight  and  die  to  save  their  country. 

When  the  final  summons  came,  his  devoted  wife,  as 
she  leaned  over  his  couch,  asked  him  if  he  wished  to 
send  any  word  to  his  sons,  who  were  far  away. 

With  his  last  expiring  breath  the  great  Senator 
replied :  "  Tell  them  to  obey  the  laws  and  support  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States."  These  were  his 
last  words. 


APPENDIX 


APPENDIX 

(NOTE— The  Speeches  of  Senator  Douglas  given  in  the   following   pages 
have  been  abbreviated  for  this  volume) 

SPEECH    IN   THE    HOUSE    OF    REPRESENTATIVES    IN 
VINDICATION    OF   ANDREW   JACKSON 

(Delivered  January  7,  1844) 

WHEN  this  bill  was  introduced  by  the  learned  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania 
[Mr.  C.  J.  Ingersoll],  I  entertained  the  hope  that  it  would  be  permitted  to 
pass  without  discussion  and  without  opposition.  But  the  character  of  the 
amendment  submitted  by  the  gentleman  from  Georgia  [Mr.  Stephens],  and 
the  debate  which  has  taken  place  upon  it  and  the  original  bill,  have  been 
of  such  a  nature  as  to  justify  and  require  the  friends  of  the  bill  to  go  into 
a  discussion  of  the  whole  subject.  For  one,  I  am  not  disposed  to  shrink 
from  the  investigation  of  any  question  connected  with  this  subject,  nor  am 
I  prepared  to  acquiesce  silently  in  the  correctness  of  the  imputations  cast 
upon  the  friends  of  this  measure  by  gentlemen  in  the  Opposition.  They 
have  been  pleased  to  stigmatize  this  act  of  justice  to  the  distinguished 
patriot  and  hero  as  a  humbug  —  a  party  trick  —  a  political  movement, 
intended  to  operate  upon  the  next  Presidential  election.  These  imputa 
tions  are  as  unfounded  as  they  are  uncourteous,  and  I  hurl  them  back,  in 
the  spirit  which  they  deserve,  upon  any  man  who  is  capable  of  harboring, 
much  less  expressing,  such  a  sentiment.  It  ill  becomes  gentlemen  to  pro 
fess  to  be  the  real  friends  of  General  Jackson  and  the  exclusive  guardians 
of  his  fame,  and  to  characterize  our  effort  as  sinister  and  insincere,  while 
in  the  same  breath  they  charge  him  with  violating  the  Constitution  and 
laws,  and  trampling  with  ruthless  violence  upon  the  judiciary  of  the  coun 
try.  They  seem  to  act  upon  the  principle  that  the  most  successful  mode 
of  blackening  the  character  of  a  great  and  good  man  is  to  profess  to  be  his 
friends  while  making  unfounded  admissions  against  him,  which,  if  true, 
would  blast  his  reputation  forever.  If  these  are  to  be  taken  as  the  kind  of 
fering  of  friendship,  well  may  the  old  hero  pray  God  to  deliver  him  from  the 
hands  of  his  friends,  and  leave  him  to  take  care  of  his  enemies.  I  insist  that 
this  bill  has  been  brought  forward  and  supported  in  good  faith  as  an  act 
of  justice  —  strict,  rigid,  impartial  justice  to  the  American  people,  as  well 
as  their  bravest  defender.  The  country  has  an  interest  in  the  character 

10 


146  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

of  her  public  men  —  their  unsullied  fame  gives  brilliancy  to  her  glory. 
The  history  of  General  Jackson  is  so  inseparably  connected  with  the  his 
tory  of  this  country  that  the  slightest  blot  upon  the  one  would  fix  an  in 
delible  stain  upon  the  other.  Hence  the  duty,  the  high  and  patriotic  duty, 
of  the  representatives  of  the  people  to  efface  every  unjust  stigma  from  the 
spotless  character  of  that  truly  great  man,  and  transmit  his  name  to  pos 
terity  adorned  with  all  the  charms  which  the  light  of  truth  will  impart  to 
it.  The  charge  of  exerting  arbitrary  power  and  lawless  violence  over  courts, 
and  Legislatures,  and  civil  institutions,  in  derogation  of  the  Constitution 
and  laws,  and  without  the  sanction  of  rightful  authority,  have  been  so 
often  made  and  reiterated  for  political  effect,  that  doubtless  many  candid 
men  have  been  disposed  to  repose  faith  in  their  correctness,  without  taking 
the  pains  to  examine  carefully  the  grounds  upon  which  they  rest. 

A  question  involving  the  right  of  the  country  to  use  the  means  necessary 
to  its  defence  from  foreign  invasion  in  times  of  imminent  and  impending 
danger  is  too  vitally  important  to  be  yielded  without  an  inquiry  into  the 
nature  and  source  of  the  fatal  restriction  which  is  to  deprive  a  nation  of  the 
power  of  self-preservation.  The  proposition  contended  for  by  the  Opposi 
tion  is,  that  the  general  in  command,  to  whose  protection  are  committed 
the  country,  and  the  lives,  property,  and  liberties  of  the  citizens  within 
his  district,  may  not  declare  martial  law  when  it  is  ascertained  that  its 
exercise,  and  it  alone,  can  save  all  from  total  destruction.  It  is  gravely 
contended  that  in  such  an  awful  conjuncture  of  circumstances,  the  general 
must  abandon  all  to  the  mercy  of  the  enemy,  because  he  is  not  authorized 
to  elevate  the  military  above  the  civil  authorities,  and  that,  too,  when  it  is 
certain  that  nothing  but  the  power  of  the  military  law  can  save  the  civil 
laws  and  the  Constitution  of  the  country  from  complete  annihilation.  If 
these  are  not  the  positions  assumed  by  gentlemen  in  so  many  words,  they 
are  unquestionably  the  conclusion  to  which  their  positions  necessarily  and 
inevitably  conduct  us ;  for  no  man  pretends  to  venture  the  assertion  that 
the  city  of  New  Orleans  could,  by  any  human  agency  or  effort,  have  been 
saved  in  any  other  manner  than  the  declaration  and  enforcement  of  mar 
tial  law.  For  one,  I  maintain  that,  in  the  exercise  of  this  power,  General 
Jackson  did  not  violate  the  Constitution,  nor  assume  to  himself  any  au 
thority  which  was  not  fully  authorized  and  legalized  by  his  position,  his 
duty,  and  the  unavoidable  necessity  of  the  case.  Sir,  I  admit  that  the 
declaration  of  martial  law  is  the  exercise  of  a  summary,  arbitrary,  and 
despotic  power,  like  that  of  a  judge  punishing  for  contempt,  without  evi 
dence,  or  trial,  or  jury,  and  without  any  other  law  than  his  own  will,  or 
any  limit  to  the  punishment  but  his  own  discretion.  The  power  in  the  two 
cases  is  analogous ;  it  rests  upon  the  same  principle,  and  is  derivable  from 
the  same  source  —  extreme  necessity.  The  gentleman  from  New  York 
[Mr.  Barnard],  in  his  legal  argument  to  establish  the  right  of  Judge  Hall 
to  fine  General  Jackson  one  thousand  dollars  for  contempt  of  court,  with 
out  the  forms  of  trial,  has  informed  us  that  this  power  is  not  conferred  by 
the  common  law,  nor  by  statute,  nor  by  any  express  provision,  but  is  in 
herent  in  every  judicial  tribunal  and  every  legislative  body.  He  has  cited 


APPENDIX  147 

the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  in  support  of  this 
doctrine,  and  I  do  not  deem  it  necessary,  for  the  purposes  of  this  argument, 
to  question  its  soundness.  The  ground  upon  which  it  is  held  that  this  ex 
traordinary  power  is  original,  and  inherent  in  all  courts  and  deliberative 
bodies,  is,  that  it  is  necessary  to  enable  them  to  perform  the  duties  imposed 
upon  them  by  the  Constitution  and  laws.  It  is  said  that  the  divine  and 
inalienable  right  of  self-defence  applies  to  courts  and  Legislatures,  to  com 
munities,  and  States,  and  nations,  as  well  as  individuals.  The  power,  it  is 
said,  is  coextensive  with  the  duty,  and,  by  virtue  of  this  principle,  each  of 
these  bodies  is  authorized  not  only  to  use  the  means  essential  to  the  per 
formance  of  the  duty,  but  also  to  exercise  the  powers  necessary  to  remove 
all  obstructions  to  the  discharge  of  that  duty.  Let  us  apply  these  princi 
ples  to  the  proceedings  at  New  Orleans,  and  see  to  what  results  they  will 
bring  us. 

General  Jackson  was  the  legally  and  constitutionally  authorized  agent  of 
the  Government  and  the  country  to  defend  that  city  and  its  adjacent  terri 
tory.  His  duty,  as  prescribed  by  the  Constitution  and  laws,  as  well  as  the 
instructions  of  the  War  Department,  was  to  defend  the  city  and  country 
at  every  hazard.  It  was  then  conceded,  and  is  now  conceded  on  all  sides, 
that  nothing  but  martial  law  would  enable  him  to  perform  that  duty.  If, 
then,  his  power  was  commensurate  with  his  duty,  and  (to  follow  the  lan 
guage  of  the  courts)  he  was  authorized  to  use  the  means  essential  to  its 
performance,  and  to  exercise  the  powers  necessary  to  remove  all  obstruc 
tions  necessary  to  its  accomplishment  —  he  had  a  right  to  declare  martial 
law,  when  it  was  ascertained  and  acknowledged  that  nothing  but  martial 
law  would  enable  him  to  defend  the  city  and  the  country.  This  principle 
has  been  recognized  and  acted  upon  by  all  civilized  nations,  and  is  familiar 
to  those  who  are  conversant  with  military  history.  It  does  not  imply 
the  right  to  suspend  the  laws  and  civil  tribunals  at  pleasure.  The  right 
grows  out  of  the  necessity;  and  when  the  necessity  fails,  the  right  ceases. 
It  may  be  absolute  or  qualified,  general  or  partial,  according  to  the  exigen 
cies  of  the  case.  The  principle  is,  that  the  general  may  go  so  far,  and  no 
farther,  than  is  absolutely  necessary  to  the  defence  of  the  city  or  district 
committed  to  his  protection.  To  this  extent  General  Jackson  was  justifi 
able;  if  he  went  beyond  it,  the  law  was  against  him.  But,  in  point  of  fact, 
he  did  not  supersede  the  laws,  nor  molest  the  proceedings  of  the  civil 
tribunals,  any  farther  than  they  were  calculated  to  obstruct  the  execution 
of  his  plans  for  the  defence  of  the  city.  In  all  other  respects  the  laws  pre 
vailed,  and  were  administered  as  in  times  of  peace,  until  the  Legislature  of 
the  State  of  Louisiana  passed  an  act  suspending  them  till  the  month  of 
May,  in  consequence  of  the  impending  danger  that  threatened  the  city. 
There  are  exigencies  in  the  history  of  nations  as  well  as  individuals  when 
necessity  becomes  the  paramount  law  to  which  all  other  considerations 
must  yield.  It  is  that  great  first  law  of  nature,  which  authorizes  a  man  to 
defend  his  life,  his  person,  his  wife  and  children,  at  all  hazards,  and  by 
every  means  in  his  power.  It  is  that  law  which  authorizes  this  body  to 
repel  aggression  and  insult,  and  to  protect  itself  in  the  exercise  of  its  legis- 


148  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 

lative  functions;  it  is  that  law  which  enables  courts  to  defend  themselves 
and  punish  for  contempt.  It  was  this  same  law  which  authorized  General 
Jackson  to  defend  New  Orleans  by  resorting  to  the  only  means  in  his  power 
which  could  accomplish  the  end.  In  such  a  crisis,  necessity  confers  the 
authority  and  defines  its  limits.  If  it  becomes  necessary  to  blow  up  a  fort, 
it  is  right  to  do  it;  if  it  is  necessary  to  sink  a  vessel,  it  is  right  to  sink  it; 
and  if  it  is  necessary  to  burn  a  city,  it  is  right  to  burn  it.  I  will  not  fatigue 
the  committee  with  a  detailed  account  of  the  occurrences  of  that  period, 
and  the  circumstances  surrounding  the  general,  which  rendered  the  danger 
immediate  and  impending,  the  necessity  unavoidable,  the  duty  imperative, 
and  temporizing  ruinous.  That  task  has  been  performed  with  such  felicity 
and  fidelity  by  the  gentleman  from  Louisiana  [Mr.  Slidell]  as  to  make  a 
recital  of  the  facts  entirely  unnecessary.  The  enemy  —  composed  of  dis 
ciplined  troops,  exceeding  our  force  four-fold  in  numbers  —  were  in  the 
immediate  vicinity  of  the  city,  ready  for  the  attack  at  any  moment.  Our 
own  little  flotilla  already  destroyed;  the  city  filled  with  traitors,  anxious 
to  surrender;  spies  transmitting  information  daily  and  nightly  between 
these  traitors  and  the  enemy's  camp;  the  population  mostly  emigrants 
from  the  different  European  countries,  speaking  various  languages,  un 
known  to  the  general  in  command,  which  prevented  any  accurate  informa 
tion  of  the  extent  of  the  disaffection ;  the  dread  of  a  servile  insurrection, 
stimulated  by  the  proclamation  and  the  promises  of  the  enemy,  of  which 
the  firing  of  the  first  gun  was  to  be  the  signal,  —  these  were  some  of  the 
reasons  which  produced  the  conviction  in  the  minds  of  all  who  were  faith 
ful  to  the  country  and  desirous  to  see  it  defended,  that  their  only  salvation 
depended  upon  the  existence  of  martial  law.  The  Governor,  the  judges, 
the  public  authorities  generally,  and  all  the  citizens  who  espoused  the 
American  cause,  came  forward  and  earnestly  entreated  General  Jackson, 
for  their  sakes,  to  declare  martial  law,  as  the  only  means  of  maintaining 
the  supremacy  of  the  American  laws  and  institutions  over  British  au 
thority  within  the  limits  of  our  own  territory.  General  Jackson,  concur 
ring  with  them  in  opinion,  promptly  issued  the  order,  and  enforced  it  by 
the  weight  of  his  authority.  The  city  was  saved.  The  country  was  de 
fended  by  a  succession  of  the  most  brilliant  military  achievements  that  ever 
adorned  the  annals  of  this  or  any  other  country,  in  this  or  any  other  age. 
Martial  law  was  continued  no  longer  than  the  danger  (and,  consequently, 
the  necessity)  existed.  At  the  time  when  Louallier  was  imprisoned  and 
Judge  Hall  was  sent  out  of  the  city,  official  news  of  the  signing  of  the  treaty 
at  Ghent  had  not  been  received;  hostilities  had  not  ceased;  nor  had  the 
enemy  retired.  On  the  very  day  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  for  Louallier 
was  returnable,  General  Jackson  received  official  instructions  from  the  War 
Department  to  raise  additional  troops  and  prepare  for  a  vigorous  prosecu 
tion  of  the  war.  Hearing  a  rumor  on  the  same  day  that  a  treaty  of  peace 
had  been  signed,  he  sent  a  proposition  to  the  British  general  for  a  cessation 
of  hostilities  until  official  intelligence  should  be  received,  which  proposition 
was  rejected  by  the  English  commander.  It  cannot  be  said,  therefore, 
that  the  war  had  closed,  or  the  necessity  for  martial  law  had  ceased.  All 


JOHN  SLIDELL 


APPENDIX  149 

the  considerations  which  induced  its  declaration  required  its  continuance. 
If  it  was  right  to  declare  it,  it  was  right  to  enforce  and  continue  it.  At  all 
events,  Judge  Hall  and  his  eulogists  are  estopped  from  denying  the  power 
or  the  propriety  of  the  declaration  or  the  enforcement  of  martial  law.  He 
advised,  urged,  and  solicited  General  Jackson  to  declare  it,  and  subse 
quently  expressed  his  approbation  of  the  act.  Yes,  even  that  learned, 
that  profound,  that  immaculate  judge,  D.  A.  Hall,  himself  advised  and 
approved  of  the  proceeding.  Did  he  not  understand  the  Constitution 
and  laws  which  it  was  his  duty  to  administer?  or,  understanding  them,  did 
he  advise  General  Jackson  to  do  an  act  in  direct  violation  of  that  Constitu 
tion  which  he  was  sworn  to  support  and  protect?  Conscientious  judge! 
Advise  a  military  officer,  when  in  the  discharge  of  a  high  and  responsible 
duty,  to  violate  the  Constitution,  and  then  arrest  and  punish  him,  without 
evidence  or  trial,  for  that  very  violation  ! 

Rare  specimen  of  judicial  integrity !  Perfidiously  advise  the  general  for 
the  purpose  of  entrapping  him  into  the  commission  of  an  unlawful  act,  that 
he  might  wreak  his  vengeance  upon  him  according  to  the  most  approved 
forms  of  the  Star  Chamber !  I  would  like  to  hear  from  his  most  ardent 
admirers  on  this  floor  upon  that  point ;  it  is  material  to  the  formation  of  a 
correct  judgment  upon  the  merits  of  this  question.  One  of  two  things  is 
necessarily  true  in  this  matter :  either  he  was  guilty  of  the  most  infamous, 
damnable  perfidy,  or  he  believed  that  General  Jackson  was  acting  within 
the  scope  of  his  rightful  authority  for  the  defence  of  the  country,  its  Con 
stitution,  and  laws.  In  either  event,  his  conduct  was  palpably  and  totally 
indefensible.  Having  advised  the  course  which  General  Jackson  pursued 
—  even  if  he  had  changed  his  opinion  as  to  the  correctness  of  that  advice, 
and  the  legality  of  the  acts  which  had  been  committed  in  pursuance  of  it, 
and  even  if,  under  these  circumstances,  he  had  felt  it  his  duty  to  vindicate 
the  supremacy  of  the  laws  and  the  authority  of  his  court  by  inflicting  the 
penalty  of  the  law  —  yet  a  mere  nominal  fine  (one  cent)  would  have  ac 
complished  that  object  as  effectually  as  one  thousand  dollars.  In  this  view, 
it  was  not  a  case  requiring  exemplary  punishment.  He  did  not  doubt  — 
he  would  not  doubt  —  that  the  General  had  acted  conscientiously  under 
a  high  sense  of  duty ;  and  if  he  had  exceeded  his  authority,  if  he  had  com 
mitted  an  error,  it  was  an  error  into  which  he  had  been  led  by  the  advice 
of  that  very  judge,  whose  duty  it  was  to  know  the  law  and  advise  correctly, 
and  who  afterward,  with  the  shameless  perversity  of  his  nature,  enforced 
a  vindictive  penalty.  I  boldly  assert  that  the  judgment  was  vindictive, 
because  the  amount  of  the  fine,  under  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  is 
conclusive  upon  that  point.  But  if  I  should  grant,  for  the  sake  of  argu 
ment  (that  which  I  do  not  admit),  that  General  Jackson  exceeded  his  au 
thority,  and  thereby  violated  the  Constitution  and  laws,  and  that  Judge 
Hall  was  clothed  with  the  competent  power  to  punish  the  offence,  still  I 
am  prepared  to  show  that,  even  in  that  event,  the  judgment  was  unjust, 
irregular,  and  illegal.  The  champions  of  Judge  Hall  on  this  floor  have  de 
bated  the  question  as  if  the  mere  declaration  of  martial  law  of  itself  was 
a  contempt  of  court,  without  reference  to  the  fact  whether  it  actually  in- 


150  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

termpted  and  obstructed  the  proceedings  of  the  court.  Was  there  ever  a 
more  fatal  and  egregious  error?  Every  unlawful  act  is  not  necessarily  a 
contempt  of  court.  A  man  may  be  guilty  of  every  offence  upon  the  whole 
catalogue  of  crime,  and  thus  obtain  for  himself  an  unenviable  immortality, 
without  committing  a  contempt  of  court.  The  doctrine  of  contempts  only 
applies  to  those  acts  which  obstruct  the  proceedings  of  the  court,  and 
against  which  the  general  laws  of  the  land  do  not  afford  adequate  protec 
tion.  It  is  this  same  doctrine  of  necessity,  conferring  power,  and  at  the 
same  time  restricting  its  exercise  within  the  narrow  limits  of  self-defence. 
The  rights  of  the  citizen,  the  liberties  of  the  people  of  this  country,  are 
secured  by  that  provision  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  which 
declares  that  "the  trial  of  all  crimes,  except  in  cases  of  impeachment,  shall 
be  by  jury";  and  also  the  amendment  to  the  Constitution  which  requires 
"a  presentment  or  indictment  of  a  grand  jury."  General  Jackson,  as  well 
as  the  humblest  citizen  and  the  vilest  criminal,  was  entitled  to  the  benefit 
of  these  constitutional  provisions.  If  he  had  violated  the  Constitution, 
and  suspended  the  laws,  and  committed  crimes,  Judge  Hall  had  no  right 
to  punish  him  by  the  summary  process  of  the  doctrine  of  contempts,  with 
out  indictment,  or  jury,  or  evidence,  or  the  forms  of  trial.  It  is  incumbent 
upon  those  who  defend  and  applaud  the  conduct  of  the  Judge  to  point  out 
the  specific  act  done  by  General  Jackson  which  constituted  a  contempt  of 
court.  The  mere  declaration  of  martial  law  is  not  of  that  character.  If  it 
was  improperly  and  unnecessarily  declared,  the  General  was  liable  to  be 
tried  by  a  court-martial,  according  to  the  rules  and  articles  of  war  estab 
lished  by  Congress  for  that  purpose.  It  was  a  matter  over  which  the  civil 
tribunals  had  no  jurisdiction,  and  with  which  they  had  no  concern,  unless 
some  specific  crime  had  been  committed  or  injury  done;  and  not  even 
then  until  it  was  brought  before  them  according  to  the  forms  of  law.  Some 
specifications  have  been  made  in  the  speeches  of  gentlemen  against  General 
Jackson,  which  I  will  notice  in  their  proper  order. 

;  The  first  is  the  arrest  and  imprisonment  of  Louallier  on  the  charge  of 
instigating  treason  and  mutiny  in  the  General's  camp.  It  is  immaterial 
for  the  purposes  of  this  discussion  whether  he  was  actually  guilty  or  not. 
He  stood  charged  with  the  commission  of  high  crimes,  the  punishment  of 
which  was  death.  He  was  believed  to  be  guilty,  and  consequently  there 
was  probable  cause  for  his  arrest  and  commitment  for  trial,  according  to 
the  doctrine  of  the  courts.  If  permitted  to  go  at  large,  he  might  have 
matured  and  executed  his  plans  of  mutiny  and  treason  by  the  aid  of  the 
British  army,  which  was  then  hovering  around  the  city.  But,  supposing 
this  arrest  to  have  been  contrary  to  law,  as  gentlemen  contend,  yet  it  was 
no  contempt  of  court.  If  it  was  an  offence  at  all,  it  was  a  case  of  false  im 
prisonment,  which  was  indictable  before  a  grand  jury  and  triable  by  a  petit 
jury.  Why  did  they  not  proceed  against  General  Jackson  according  to 
law,  and  give  him  a  trial  by  a  jury  of  his  country,  and  obtain  a  verdict  ac 
cording  to  evidence?  The  answer  is  obvious:  they  could  not  procure  a 
verdict  of  "Guilty"  from  an  honest  and  patriotic  jury  who  had  fought  in 
defence  of  the  city  under  the  operation  of  that  "terrible  martial  law," 


APPENDIX  151 


and  who  had  witnessed  the  necessity  for  its  declaration,  and  its  glorious 
effects  in  the  salvation  of  the  country. 
J_The  next  specification  which  gentlemen  make  against  General  Jackson 
is,  that  he  did  not  appear  before  Judge  Hall  in  obedience  to  a  writ  of  habeas 
corpus  issued  by  the  Judge  for  the  liberation  of  Louallier,  who  was  in 
confinement  on  a  charge  of  mutiny  and  treason.  A  simple  statement  of 
the  facts  of  this  case  will  carry  with  it  the  General's  justification.  The 
evidence  shows  that  the  writ  was  issued  on  the  fifth  of  the  month,  and 
made  returnable  on  the  sixth,  before  Judge  Hall,  at  eleven  o'clock  in  the 
morning,  and  that  it  was  never  served  on  General  Jackson,  or  shown  to 
him,  until  the  evening  afterward.  Hence  it  was  impossible  for  him  to  have 
complied  with  the  injunctions  of  that  writ  if  he  had  desired  to  do  so.  The 
writ  had  spent  its  force,  had  expired,  was  functus  officio  before  it  reached 
General  Jackson.  There  was  no  command  of  the  court  remaining  that 
could  be  obeyed,  the  tune  had  elapsed.  These  facts  were  distinctly  set 
forth  by  General  Jackson,  under  oath,  in  his  answer  to  the  rule  of  court 
requiring  him  to  show  cause  why  he  should  not  be  punished  for  contempt; 
and  they  have  never  been  denied.  In  fact,  there  is  an  abundance  of  corrob 
orative  evidence  to  the  same  effect.  From  these  facts,  it  is  clear,  first, 
that  General  Jackson  had  committed  no  contempt  of  court;  and,  secondly, 
if  he  had,  he  fully  purged  himself  of  the  alleged  offence. 

The  next  specification  in  the  catalogue  of  crimes  which  gentlemen  charge 
upon  the  hero  of  New  Orleans  is,  that  he  forcibly  seized  and  retained 
possession  of  the  writ,  and  the  affidavit  on  which  it  was  issued.  The  facts 
are,  that  when  the  writ  and  affidavit  were  brought  to  him  for  service,  after 
the  time  for  its  return  had  elapsed  and  it  had  become  a  nullity,  he  dis 
covered  that  a  material  alteration  had  been  made,  in  the  handwriting  of 
the  Judge,  not  only  in  the  writ,  but  also  in  the  affidavit,  without  the  con 
sent  of  the  man  who  had  sworn  to  it.  These  alterations  of  themselves  ren 
dered  the  papers  void,  even  if  they  had  been  originally  valid,  and  had  not 
expired  of  their  own  limitation ;  but,  as  they  contained  the  evidence  upon 
their  face  of  the  crime  of  forgery,  it  was  important  that  General  Jackson 
should  retain  possession  of  them,  lest  they  should  be  destroyed  and  the 
evidence  lost.  With  this  view,  the  General  did  retain  the  originals  and 
furnish  certified  copies  to  the  Judge.  These  transactions  did  not  occur  in 
the  presence  of  the  Judge  or  his  court,  nor  when  his  court  was  in  session, 
and,  of  course,  could  not  legally  be  punished  by  the  summary  process  of 
contempt.  If  they  were  illegal,  why  not  give  the  benefit  of  a  fair  trial  by 
a  jury  of  his  country,  as  guaranteed  by  the  Constitution  and  laws?  No; 
this  was  arbitrarily  and  unjustly  withheld  from  him,  thereby  denying  him 
the  privilege  of  proving  his  innocence. 

The  next,  and  the  last,  of  these  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors  imputed 
to  Jackson  at  New  Orleans  is  that  of  arresting  Judge  Hall  and  sending  him 
beyond  the  limits  of  the  city,  with  instructions  not  to  return  until  peace 
was  restored.  The  justification  of  this  act  is  found  in  the  necessity  which 
required  the  declaration  of  martial  law,  and  its  continuance  and  enforce 
ment  until  the  enemy  should  have  left  our  shores,  or  the  treaty  of  peace 


152  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 

should  have  been  ratified  and  published.  The  Judge  had  confederated 
with  Louallier  and  the  rest  of  that  band  of  conspirators,  who  were  attempt 
ing  to  defeat  the  efforts  of  the  American  General  for  the  defence  of  the  city. 
Their  movements  were  dangerous,  because  they  were  protected  by  the 
power  of  civil  law  in  the  person  of  Judge  Hall,  by  a  perversion  of  the  privi 
leges  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus.  The  General  was  driven  to  an  extremity, 
in  which  he  was  compelled  either  to  abandon  the  city  to  whatever  fate  the 
conspirators  might  choose  to  consign  it,  or  to  resolutely  maintain  his  au 
thority  by  the  exertion  of  his  own  power.  He  TOOK  THE  RESPONSIBILITY, 
and  sent  the  Judge  beyond  the  lines  of  his  camp.  The  question  arises, 
Was  this  act  a  contempt  of  court?  The  court  was  not  in  session,  he  did  not 
interrupt  its  proceeding,  he  did  not  obstruct  its  progress,  but  he  did  im 
prison  the  man  who  had  been  exercising  the  powers  of  judge.  If  that  im 
prisonment  had  been  unlawful,  the  General  was  liable  to  be  indicted  for 
false  imprisonment,  and,  like  any  other  offender,  to  be  tried  and  condemned 
according  to  the  forms  of  law.  But  the  Judge  had  no  right  to  say  Vengeance 
is  mine,  and  I  will  visit  it  upon  the  head  of  my  enemy  until  the  measure  of 
my  revenge  is  full. 

Now,  sir,  I  have  disposed  of  all  the  specifications  of  crime  and  oppression 
and  tyranny  which  have  been  charged  upon  General  Jackson  by  his  enemies 
upon  this  floor,  in  connection  with  his  defence  of  New  Orleans.  I  have  en 
deavored  to  state  the  facts  truly,  and  fairly  apply  the  principles  of  law  to 
them.  I  will  thank  the  most  learned  and  astute  lawyer  upon  this  floor  to 
point  out  which  one  of  those  acts  was  a  contempt  of  court,  in  the  legal 
sense  of  that  term,  so  as  to  authorize  a  summary  infliction  of  punishment 
without  evidence,  trial,  or  jury.  No  gentleman  has  yet  specified  the  act 
and  explained  wherein  the  contempt  consisted;  and  I  presume  no  one 
will  venture  on  so  difficult  a  task.  It  is  more  prudent  to  deal  in  vague 
generalities  and  high-sounding  declamation,  first  about  the  horrors  of  ar 
bitrary  power  and  lawless  violence,  then  the  supremacy  of  the  laws  and 
the  glorious  privileges  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus.  These  things  sound 
very  well,  and  are  right  in  their  proper  place.  I  do  not  wish  to  extenuate 
the  one  or  depreciate  the  other;  but  when  I  hear  gentlemen  attempting 
to  justify  this  unrighteous  fine  upon  General  Jackson  upon  the  ground  of 
non-compliance  with  rules  of  court  and  mere  formalities,  I  must  confess 
that  I  cannot  appreciate  the  force  of  the  argument.  In  cases  of  war  and 
desolation,  in  times  of  peril  and«disaster,  we  should  look  at  the  substance 
and  not  the  shadow  of  things.  I  envy  not  the  feelings  of  the  man  who  can 
reason  coolly  and  calmly  about  the  force  of  precedents  and  the  tendency 
of  examples  in  the  fury  of  the  war-cry,  when  "booty  and  beauty"  is  the  j 
watchword.  Talk  not  to  me  about  rules  and  forms  in  court  when  the  j 
enemy's  cannon  are  pointed  at  the  door,  and  the  flames  encircle  the  cupola  !  j 
The  man  whose  stoicism  would  enable  him  to  philosophize  coolly  under 
these  circumstances  would  fiddle  while  the  Capitol  was  burning,  and  laugh 
at  the  horror  and  anguish  that  surrounded  him  in  the  midst  of  the  con 
flagration  !  I  claim  not  the  possession  of  these  remarkable  feelings.  I 
concede  them  all  to  those  who  think  that  the  savior  of  New  Orleans  ought 


APPENDIX  153 

to  be  treated  like  a  criminal  for  not  possessing  them  in  a  higher  degree. 
Their  course  in  this  debate  has  proved  them  worthy  disciples  of  the  doc 
trine  they  profess.  Let  them  receive  all  the  encomiums  which  such  senti 
ments  are  calculated  to  inspire. 

But,  sir,  for  the  purposes  of  General  Jackson's  justification,  I  care  not 
whether  his  proceedings  were  legal  or  illegal,  constitutional  or  unconstitu 
tional,  with  or  without  precedent,  if  they  were  necessary  for  the  salvation 
of  that  city.  And  I  care  as  little  whether  he  observed  all  the  rules  and 
forms  of  court,  and  technicalities  of  the  law,  which  some  gentlemen  seem 
to  consider  the  perfection  of  reason  and  the  essence  of  wisdom.  There  was 
but  one  form  necessary  on  that  occasion,  and  that  was  to  point  cannon  and 
destroy  the  enemy.  The  gentleman  from  New  York  [Mr.  Barnard],  to 
whose  speech  I  have  had  occasion  to  refer  so  frequently,  has  informed  us 
that  this  bill  is  unprecedented.  I  have  no  doubt  this  remark  is  technically 
true  according  to  the  most  approved  forms.  I  presume  no  case  can  be 
found  on  record,  or  traced  by  tradition,  where  a  fine,  imposed  upon  a  gen 
eral  for  saving  his  country,  at  the  peril  of  his  life  and  reputation,  has  ever 
been  refunded.  Such  a  case  would  furnish  a  choice  page  in  the  history  of 
any  country.  I  grant  that  it  is  unprecedented,  and  for  that  reason  we  de 
sire  on  this  day  to  make  a  precedent  which  shall  command  the  admiration 
of  the  world,  and  be  transmitted  to  future  generations  as  an  evidence  that 
the  people  of  this  age  and  in  this  country  were  not  unjust  to  their  bene 
factor.  This  bill  is  unprecedented,  because  no  court  ever  before  imposed 
a  fine  under  the  same  circumstances.  In  this  respect  Judge  Hall  himself 
stands  unprecedented. 

The  gentleman  from  Louisiana  [Mr.  Dawson],  who  addressed  the  com 
mittee  the  other  day,  told  us  that  General  Wilkinson  declared  martial  law 
at  New  Orleans  and  enforced  it  at  the  time  of  Burr's  conspiracy.  Where 
was  Judge  Hall  then  that  he  did  not  vindicate  the  supremacy  of  the  laws 
and  the  authority  of  his  court?  Why  did  he  not  then  inflict  the  penalty 
of  the  law  upon  the  perpetrator  of  such  a  gross  infraction  of  the  Constitu 
tion  which  he  was  sworn  to  defend  and  support?  Perhaps  his  admirers 
here  will  tell  us  that  he  did  not  advise,  and  urge,  and  entreat  General  Wil 
kinson  to  declare  martial  law.  I  believe  that  feature  does  distinguish  the 
two  cases,  and  gentlemen  are  entitled  to  all  the  merit  they  can  derive  from 
it.  I  am  informed  that  in  one  of  those  trying  cases  during  the  last  war, 
which  required  great  energy  and  nerve  and  self-sacrificing  patriotism, 
General  Gaines  had  the  firmness  to  declare  martial  law  at  Sackett's  Harbor; 
and  when,  after  the  danger  had  passed,  he  submitted  himself  to  the  civil 
authorities,  he  received  the  penalty  of  the  law  in  the  shape  of  a  public 
dinner  instead  of  a  vindictive  punishment.  I  doubt  not  many  other  cases 
of  a  similar  nature  may  be  found,  if  any  one  will  take  the  trouble  of  exam 
ining  the  history  of  our  two  wars  with  Great  Britain.  But  if  the  gentleman 
from  New  York  intended  to  assert  that  it  was  unprecedented  for  Con 
gress  to  remunerate  military  and  naval  commanders  for  fines,  judgments, 
and  damages  assessed  against  them  by  courts  for  violating  the  laws  in  the 
honest  discharge  of  their  public  duties,  I  must  be  permitted  to  inform  him 


154  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 

that  he  has  not  examined  the  legislation  of  his  country  in  that  respect. 
If  the  gentleman  will  read  the  speech  of  the  pure,  noble,  and  lamented 
Linn  in  the  Senate,  in  May,  1842,  he  will  find  there  a  long  list  of  cases  in 
which  laws  of  this  kind  have  been  passed. 

He  said,  "There  were  precedents  innumerable  where  officers  have  been 
found  guilty  of  breaches  of  law  in  the  discharge  of  their  public  duty,  and 
therefore  calling  for  the  interference  of  a  just  Government.  Of  these  it  is 
only  necessary  to  introduce  a  few  where  the  Government  did  interpose  and 
give  relief  to  the  injured  officer.  These  cases  commenced  as  early  as  August, 
1790,  and  have  continued  down  to  the  present  time.  Thus,  in  April,  1818, 
Major  General  Jacob  Brown  was  indemnified  for  damages  sustained  under 
sentence  of  civil  law  for  having  confined  an  individual  found  near  his  camp, 
suspected  of  traitorous  designs. 

"At  the  same  session  Captain  Austin  and  Lieutenant  Wells  were  in 
demnified  against  nine  judgments,  amounting  to  upward  of  six  thousand 
dollars,  for  having  confined  nine  individuals  suspected  of  treachery  to  the 
country.  In  this  case  it  was  justly  remarked  by  the  Secretary  of  War 
[John  C.  Calhoun],  that  'if  it  should  be  determined  that  no  law  author 
ized'  the  act,  'yet  I  would  respectfully  suggest  that  there  may  be  cases  in 
the  exigencies  of  the  war  in  which,  if  the  commander  should  transcend 
his  legal  power,  Congress  ought  to  protect  him  and  those  who  acted 
under  him  from  consequential  damages.' 

"In  the  case  of  General  Robert  Swartwout  in  1823,  the  committee  by 
whom  it  was  reported  stated  that  'it  is  considered  one  of  those  extreme 
cases  of  necessity  in  which  an  overstepping  of  the  established  legal  rules 
of  society  stands  fully  justified.'  " 

I  will  not  occupy  the  time  of  the  committee  with  further  quotations,  but 
will  refer  those  who  may  wish  to  examine  the  subject  to  the  speech  itself, 
and  the  cases  there  cited. 

These  cases  fully  sustain  the  position  I  have  taken,  and  prove  that  the 
Government  has  repeatedly  recognized  and  sanctioned  the  doctrine  that 
in  cases  of  "extreme  necessity  the  commander  is  fully  justified"  in  super 
seding  the  civil  laws,  and  that  Congress  will  always  "make  remuneration 
when  they  are  satisfied  he  acted  with  the  sole  view  of  promoting  the  public 
interests  confided  to  his  command."  The  principle  deducible  from  all  the 
cases  is,  that  when  the  necessity  is  extreme  and  unavoidable,  the  com 
mander  is  fully  justified,  provided  he  acted  in  good  faith;  and,  in  either 
event,  Congress  will  always  make  remuneration.  Then,  sir,  I  trust  I  have 
shown  to  the  satisfaction  of  all  candid  men  that,  instead  of  this  bill  being 
unprecedented,  the  opposition  —  the  fierce,  bitter,  vindictive  opposition 
to  its  passage  —  is  unprecedented  in  the  annals  of  American  legislation. 
Are  gentlemen  desirous  of  making  General  Jackson  an  exception  to  those 
principles  of  justice  which  have  prevailed  in  all  other  cases?  They  mistake 
the  character  of  the  American  people  if  they  suppose  they  sever  the  cords 
which  bind  them  to  their  great  benefactor  by  continued  acts  of  wanton 
injustice  and  base  ingratitude. 

Why  this  persevering  resistance  to  the  will  of  the  people,  which  has  been 


APPENDIX  155 

expressed  in  a  manner  too  imperative  and  authoritative  to  be  successfully 
resisted?  The  people  demand  this  measure,  and  they  will  never  be  quieted 
until  their  wishes  shall  have  been  respected  and  their  will  obeyed.  They 
will  ask,  they  will  demand,  the  reason  why  General  Jackson  has  been 
selected  as  the  victim,  and  his  case  made  an  ignominious  exception  to  the 
principles  which  have  been  adopted  in  all  other  cases,  from  the  foundation 
of  the  Government  until  the  present  moment.  Was  there  anything  in  his 
conduct  at  New  Orleans  to  justify  this  wide  departure  from  the  uniform 
practice  of  the  Government,  and  single  him  out  as  an  outlaw  who  had  for 
feited  all  claim  to  the  justice  and  protection  of  his  country?  Does  the  man 
live  who  will  have  the  hardihood  to  question  his  patriotism,  his  honesty, 
the  purity  of  his  motives  in  every  act  he  performed,  and  every  power  he 
exercised  on  that  trying  occasion?  While  none  dare  impeach  his  motives, 
they  tell  us  he  assumed  almost  unlimited  power. 

I  commend  him  for  it ;  the  exigency  required  it.  I  admire  that  eleva 
tion  of  soul  which  rises  above  all  personal  considerations,  and,  regardless 
of  consequences,  stakes  life,  and  honor,  and  glory  upon  the  issue,  when  the 
salvation  of  the  country  depends  upon  the  result.  I  also  admire  that  calm 
ness,  moderation,  and  submission  to  rightful  authority,  which  should 
always  prevail  in  times  of  peace  and  security.  The  conduct  of  General 
Jackson  furnished  the  most  brilliant  specimens  of  each  the  world  ever 
witnessed.  I  know  not  which  to  applaud  most,  his  acts  of  high  responsi 
bility  and  deeds  of  noble  daring  in  the  midst  of  peril  and  danger,  or  his 
mildness,  and  moderation,  and  lamb-like  submission  to  the  laws  and  civil 
authorities  when  peace  was  restored  to  his  country. 

Can  gentlemen  see  nothing  to  admire,  nothing  to  commend,  in  the  closing 
scenes,  when,  fresh  from  the  battle-field,  the  victorious  General  —  the  idol 
of  his  army  and  the  acknowledged  savior  of  his  countrymen  —  stood  be 
fore  Judge  Hall,  and  quelled  the  tumult  and  indignant  murmurs  of  the 
multitude  by  telling  him  that  "the  same  arm  which  had  defended  the  city 
from  the  ravages  of  a  foreign  enemy  should  protect  him  in  the  discharge 
of  his  duty"?  Is  this  the  conduct  of  a  lawless  desperado,  who  delights  in 
trampling  upon  Constitution,  and  law,  and  right?  Is  there  no  reverence 
for  the  supremacy  of  the  laws  and  the  civil  institutions  of  the  country  dis 
played  on  this  occasion?  If  such  acts  of  heroism  and  moderation,  of 
chivalry  and  submission,  have  no  charms  to  excite  the  admiration  or  soften 
the  animosities  of  gentlemen  in  the  Opposition,  I  have  no  desire  to  see 
them  vote  for  this  bill.  The  character  of  the  hero  of  New  Orleans  requires 
no  endorsement  from  such  a  source.  They  wish  to  fix  a  mark,  a  stigma  of 
reproach,  upon  his  character,  and  send  him  to  his  grave  branded  as  a 
criminal.  His  stern,  inflexible  adherence  to  Democratic  principles,  his 
unwavering  devotion  to  his  country,  and  his  intrepid  opposition  to  her 
enemies,  have  so  long  thwarted  their  unhallowed  schemes  of  ambition  and 
power,  that  they  fear  the  potency  of  his  name  on  earth,  even  after  his  spirit 
shall  have  ascended  to  heaven. 


SPEECH    IN    THE    HOUSE    OF    REPRESENTATIVES    ON    THE 
ANNEXATION   OF  TEXAS  AND  THE   MEXICAN  WAR 

(Delivered  May,  1846) 

MR.  CHAIRMAN,  if  I  could  have  anticipated  the  extraordinary  turn  which 
has  been  given  to  this  discussion,  I  could  have  presented  to  the  committee 
and  the  country  a  mass  of  evidence,  from  official  documents,  sufficient  to 
show  that,  for  years  past,  we  have  had  ample  cause  of  war  against  Mexico, 
independent  of  the  recent  bloody  transactions  upon  the  Rio  del  Norte.  I 
could  have  presented  a  catalogue  of  aggressions  and  insults;  of  outrages 
on  our  national  flag,  on  the  persons  and  property  of  our  citizens;  of  the 
violation  of  treaty  stipulations,  and  the  murder,  robbery,  and  imprison 
ment  of  our  countrymen,  —  the  very  recital  of  which  would  suffice  to  fill 
the  national  heart  with  indignation.  Well  do  I  recollect  that  General 
Jackson,  during  the  last  year  of  his  administration,  deemed  the  subject  of 
sufficient  importance  at  that  time  to  send  a  special  message  to  Congress, 
in  which  he  declared :  "The  wanton  character  of  some  of  the  outrages  upon 
the  persons  and  property  of  our  citizens,  upon  the  officers  and  flag  of  the 
United  States,  independent  of  recent  insults  to  this  Government  and  people 
by  the  late  extraordinary  Mexican  minister,  would  justify,  in  the  eyes  of 
nations,  immediate  war."  ...  I  have  in  a  book  before  me  an  extract  from 
the  report  of  the  Secretary  of  State  [Mr.  Forsyth]  to  the  President,  to 
which  I  will  invite  the  attention  of  those  who  have  not  examined  the 
subject: 

"Since  the  last  session  of  Congress  an  embargo  has  been  laid  on  Ameri 
can  vessels  in  the  ports  of  Mexico.  Although  raised,  no  satisfaction  has 
been  made  or  offered  for  the  resulting  injuries.  Our  merchant  vessels  have 
been  captured  for  disregarding  a  pretended  blockade  of  Texas ;  vessels  and 
cargoes,  secretly  proceeded  against  in  Mexican  tribunals,  condemned  and 
sold.  The  captains,  crews,  and  passengers  of  the  captured  vessels  have 
been  imprisoned  and  plundered  of  their  property;  and,  after  enduring  in 
sults  and  injuries,  have  been  released  without  remuneration  or  apology. 
For  these  acts  no  reparation  has  been  promised  or  explanations  given, 
although  satisfaction  was,  in  general  terms,  demanded  in  July  last." 

Aside  from  the  insults  to  our  flag,  the  indignity  to  the  nation,  and  the 
injury  to  our  commerce,  it  is  estimated  that  not  less  than  ten  millions  of 
dollars  are  due  to  our  citizens  for  these  and  many  other  outrages  which 
Mexico  has  committed  within  the  last  fifteen  years.  When  pressed  by  our 
Government  for  adjustment  and  remuneration,  she  has  resorted  to  all 
manner  of  expedients  to  procrastinate  and  delay.  She  has  made  treaties 


APPENDIX  157 

acknowledging  the  justice  of  our  claims,  and  then  refused  to  ratify  them 
on  the  most  frivolous  pretexts,  and,  even  when  ratified,  has  failed  to  com 
ply  with  their  stipulations.  The  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  of  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States  in  1837  made  a  report  upon  the  subject,  in 
which  they  said,  "If  the  Government  of  the  United  States  were  to  exact 
strict  and  prompt  redress  from  Mexico,  your  committee  might  with  justice 
recommend  an  immediate  resort  to  war  or  reprisal."  The  Committee  on 
Foreign  Affairs  on  the  part  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  at  the  same 
session,  say:  "The  merchant  vessels  of  the  United  States  have  been  fired 
into,  her  citizens  attacked  and  even  put  to  death,  and  her  ships  of  war 
treated  with  disrespect  when  paying  a  friendly  visit  to  a  port  where  they 
had  a  right  to  expect  hospitality";  and,  in  conclusion,  the  committee  ob 
serve  that  "they  fully  concur  with  the  President  that  ample  cause  exists 
for  taking  redress  into  their  own  hands,  and  believe  we  should  be  justified, 
in  the  opinion  of  other  nations,  for  taking  such  a  step/*~  Such  was  the 
posture  of  our  affairs  with  Mexico  in  1837  and  1838,  and  the  opinion  of  the 
several  departments  of  our  Government  in  regard  to  the  character  and 
enormity  of  the  outrages  complained  of.  These  transactions  all  occurred 
years  before  the  question  of  the  annexation  of  Texas  was  favorably 
entertained  by  our  Government.  We  had  been  the  first  to  recognize  the 
independence  of  Texas,  as  well  as  that  of  Mexico,  before  the  national  ex 
istence  of  either  had  been  acknowledged  by  the  parent  country.  In  doing 
this  we  only  exercised  an  undoubted  right,  according  to  the  laws  of  nations, 
and  our  example  was  immediately  followed  by  France,  England,  and  all 
the  principal  powers  of  Europe.  The  question  of  the  annexation  of  Texas 
to  this  country  was  not  then  seriously  mooted.  The  proposition  had  been 
made  by  Texas,  and  promptly  rejected  by  our  Government.  Of  course, 
there  could  be  nothing  growing  out  of  that  question  which  could  have  given 
the  slightest  cause  of  offence  to  Mexico,  or  can  be  urged  in  palliation  of  the 
monstrous  outrages  which  for  a  long  series  of  years  previous  she  had  been 
committing  upon  the  rights,  interests,  and  honor  of  our  country.  But  our 
causes  of  complaint  do  not  stop  here.  In  1842,  Mr.  Thompson,  our  minister 
to  that  country,  felt  himself  called  upon  to  issue  an  address  to  the  diplo 
matic  corps  at  Mexico,  in  which,  after  reciting  our  grievances,  he  said: 

"Not  only  have  we  never  done  an  act  of  an  unfriendly  character  toward 
Mexico,  but  I  confidently  assert  that,  from  the  very  moment  of  the  exist 
ence  of  the  republic,  we  have  allowed  to  pass  unimproved  no  opportunity 
of  doing  Mexico  an  act  of  kindness.  I  will  not  now  enumerate  the  acts  of 
that  character,  both  to  the  Government  of  Mexico  and  to  the  citizens, 
public  and  private.  If  this  Government  choose  to  forget  them,  I  will  not 
recall  them.  While  such  has  been  our  course  to  Mexico,  it  is  with  pain  I 
am  forced  to  say  that  the  open  violation  of  the  rights  of  American  citizens 
by  the  authorities  of  Mexico  have  been  greater  for  the  last  fifteen  years 
than  those  of  all  the  governments  of  Christendom  united ;  and  yet  we  have 
left  the  redress  of  all  these  multiplied  and  accumulated  wrongs  to  friendly 
negotiation,  without  having  ever  intimated  a  disposition  to  resort  to 
force," 


158  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 

It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  all  these  insults  and  injuries  were  com 
mitted  before  the  annexation  of  Texas  to  the  United  States.  .  .  .  The  first 
proposition  for  annexation  had  been  promptly  rejected  —  in  my  opinion 
very  unwisely  —  from  a  false  delicacy  toward  the  feelings  of  Mexico. 
When  the  question  was  again  agitated,  she  gave  notice  to  this  Government 
that  she  would  regard  the  consummation  of  the  measure  as  a  declaration 
of  war.  She  made  the  passage  of  the  resolution  of  annexation  by  the  Con 
gress  of  the  United  States  the  pretext  for  dissolving  the  diplomatic  rela 
tions  between  the  two  countries.  She  peremptorily  recalled  her  minister 
from  Washington,  and  virtually  dismissed  ours  from  Mexico,  permitting 
him,  as  in  the  case  of  all  his  predecessors,  to  be  robbed  by  her  banditti, 
according  to  the  usages  of  the  country.  This  was  followed  by  the  with 
drawal  of  the  Mexican  consuls  from  our  seaports,  and  the  suspension  of  all 
commercial  intercourse.  Our  Government  submitted  to  these  accumulated 
insults  and  injuries  with  patience  and  forbearance,  still  hoping  for  an 
adjustment  of  all  our  difficulties  without  being  compelled  to  resort  to 
actual  hostilities.  Impelled  by  this  spirit  of  moderation,  our  Government 
determined  to  waive  all  matters  of  etiquette,  and  make  another  effort  to 
restore  the  amicable  relations  of  the  two  countries  by  negotiation.  An 
informal  application  was  therefore  made  to  the  Government  of  Mexico  to 
know  whether,  in  the  event  we  should  send  a  minister  to  that  country, 
clothed  with  ample  powers,  she  would  not  receive  him  with  a  view  to  a 
satisfactory  adjustment.  Having  received  an  affirmative  answer,  Mr. 
Slidell  was  immediately  appointed  and  sent  to  Mexico.  Upon  his  arrival 
he  presented  his  credentials  and  requested  to  be  formally  received.  The 
Government  of  Mexico  at  first  hesitated,  then  procrastinated,  and  finally 
refused  to  receive  him  in  his  capacity  of  minister.  Here,  again,  the  for 
bearance  of  our  Government  is  most  signally  displayed.  Instead  of  re 
senting  this  renewed  insult  by  the  chastisement  due  to  her  perfidy,  our 
Government  again  resolved  to  make  another  effort  for  peace.  Accordingly, 
Mr.  Slidell  was  instructed  to  remain  at  some  suitable  place  in  the  vicinity 
of  the  city  of  Mexico  until  the  result  of  the  revolution  then  pending  should 
be  known;  and,  in  the  event  of  success,  to  make  application  to  the  new 
Government  to  be  received  as  minister.  Paredes  being  firmly  established 
in  power,  with  his  administration  formed,  Mr.  Slidell  again  applied,  and 
was  again  rejected.  In  the  mean  time,  while  these  events  were  occurring 
at  the  capital  of  Mexico,  her  armies  were  marching  from  all  parts  of  the 
republic  toward  the  boundary  of  the  United  States,  and  were  concentrat 
ing  in  large  numbers  at  and  near  Matamoros.  Of  course,  our  Government 
watched  all  these  military  movements  with  interest  and  vigilance.  While 
we  were  anxious  for  peace,  and  were  using  all  the  means  in  our  power,  con 
sistent  with  honor,  to  restore  friendly  relations,  the  administration  was  not 
idle  in  its  preparations  to  meet  any  crisis  that  might  arise,  and,  if  necessary 
in  self-defence,  to  repel  force  by  force.  With  this  view  an  efficient  squad 
ron  had  been  sent  to  the  Gulf  of  Mexico,  and  a  portion  of  the  army  con 
centrated  between  the  Nueces  and  the  Rio  del  Norte,  with  positive  instruc 
tions  to  commit  no  act  of  aggression,  and  to  act  strictly  on  the  defensive, 


APPENDIX  159 

unless  Mexico  unfortunately  should  commence  hostilities  and  attempt  to 
invade  our  territory.  When  General  Taylor  pitched  his  camp  on  the 
banks  of  the  Rio  del  Norte,  he  sent  General  Worth  across  the  river  to  ex 
plain  to  the  Mexican  general  and  the  civil  authorities  of  Matamoros  the 
objects  of  his  mission;  that  his  was  not  a  hostile  expedition;  that  it  was 
not  his  intention  to  invade  Mexico  or  commit  any  act  of  aggression  upon 
her  rights;  that  he  was  instructed  by  his  Government  to  act  strictly  on 
the  defensive,  and  simply  to  protect  American  soil  and  American  citizens 
from  invasion  and  aggression;  that  the  United  States  desired  peace  with 
Mexico;  and,  if  hostilities  ensued,  Mexico  would  have  to  strike  the  first 
blow.  When  the  two  armies  were  thus  posted  on  opposite  sides  of  the 
river,  Colonel  Cross,  while  riding  alone  a  few  miles  from  the  American 
camp,  was  captured,  robbed,  murdered,  and  quartered.  About  the  same 
time  the  Mexican  general  sent  a  notice  to  General  Taylor  that,  unless  he 
removed  his  camp  and  retired  to  the  east  side  of  the  Nueces,  he  should 
compel  him  to  do  so.  Subsequently  General  Arista  sent  a  message  to 
General  Taylor  that  hostilities  already  existed.  On  the  next  day  a  small 
portion  of  our  army,  while  reconnoitring  the  country  on  the  American  side 
of  the  river,  was  surrounded,  fired  upon,  and  the  greater  portion  of  them 
captured  or  killed.  It  was  then  discovered  that  the  Mexican  army  had 
crossed  the  river,  surrounded  the  American  camp,  and  interposed  a  large 
force  between  General  Taylor's  encampment  and  Point  Isabel,  the  depot 
of  his  provisions  and  military  stores. 

Here  we  have  the  causes  and  origin  of  the  existing  war  with  Mexico. 
The  facts  which  I  have  briefly  recited  are  accessible  to,  if  not  within  the 
knowledge  of,  every  gentleman  who  feels  an  interest  in  examining  them. 
Their  authenticity  does  not  depend  upon  the  weight  of  my  authority.  They 
are  to  be  found  in  full  and  in  detail  in  the  public  documents  on  our  tables 
and  in  our  libraries.  With  a  knowledge  of  the  facts,  or,  at  least,  professing 
to  know  them,  gentlemen  have  the  hardihood  to  tell  us  that  the  President 
has  unwisely  and  unnecessarily  precipitated  the  country  into  an  unjust 
and  unholy  war.  They  express  great  sympathy  for  Mexico;  profess  to 
regard  her  as  an  injured  and  persecuted  nation  —  the  victim  of  American 
injustice  and  aggression.  They  have  no  sympathy  for  the  widows  and 
orphans  whose  husbands  and  fathers  have  been  robbed  and  murdered  by 
the  Mexican  authorities;  no  sympathy  with  our  own  countrymen  who 
have  dragged  out  miserable  lives  within  the  walls  of  her  dungeons,  without 
crime  and  without  trial;  no  indignation  at  the  outrages  upon  our  com 
merce  and  shipping,  and  the  insults  to  our  national  flag;  no  resentment 
at  the  violation  of  treaties  and  the  invasion  of  our  territory. 

I  will  now  proceed  to  examine  the  arguments  by  which  the  gentleman 
from  Ohio  [Mr.  Delano],  and  those  with  whom  he  acts,  pretend  to  justify 
their  foreign  sympathies.  They  assume  that  the  Rio  del  Norte  was  not 
the  boundary  line  between  Texas  and  Mexico ;  that  the  republic  of  Texas 
never  extended  beyond  the  Nueces,  and,  consequently,  that  our  Govern 
ment  was  under  no  obligation,  and  had  no  right,  to  protect  the  lives  and 
property  of  American  citizens  beyond  that  river.  In  support  of  that 


160  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

assumption,  the  gentleman  has  referred  to  a  dispute  which  he  says  once  arose 
between  the  provinces  of  Coahuila  and  Texas,  and  the  decisions  of  Almonte, 
and  some  other  Mexican  general,  thereon,  prior  to  the  Texan  revolution, 
and  while  those  provinces  constituted  one  State  in  the  Mexican  confedera 
tion.  He  has  also  referred  to  Mrs.  Holley's  History  of  Texas,  and,  perhaps, 
some  other  works,  in  which  we  are  informed  that  the  same  boundary  was 
assigned  to  the  Mexican  province  of  Texas.  I  am  not  entirely  unacquainted 
with  the  facts  and  authorities  to  which  the  gentleman  has  alluded,  but  I 
am  at  a  loss  to  discover  their  bearing  on  the  question  at  issue.  True  it  is 
that  in  1827  the  provinces  of  Coahuila  and  Texas  were  erected  into  one 
State,  having  formed  for  themselves  a  republican  Constitution,  similar,  in 
most  of  its  provisions,  to  those  of  the  several  States  of  our  Union.  Their 
Constitution  provided  that  the  State  of  Coahuila  and  Texas  "is  free  and 
independent  of  the  other  united  Mexican  States,  and  of  every  other  foreign 
power  and  dominion";  that  "in  all  matters  relating  to  the  Mexican  con 
federation  the  State  delegates  its  faculties  and  powers  to  the  general  Con 
gress  of  the  same;  but  in  all  that  properly  relates  to  the  administration 
and  entire  government  of  the  State,  it  retains  its  liberty,  independence, 
and  sovereignty";  that,  "therefore,  belongs  exclusively  to  the  same  State 
the  right  to  establish,  by  means  of  its  representatives,  its  fundamental 
laws,  conformable  to  the  basis  sanctioned  in  the  constitutional  act  and  the 
general  Constitution."  This  new  State,  composed  of  a  union  of  the  two 
provinces,  was  admitted  into  the  Mexican  confederacy  under  the  general 
Constitution  established  in  1824,  upon  the  conditions  which  I  have  recited. 
The  province  of  Coahuila  lay  on  the  west  side  of  the  Rio  del  Norte,  and 
Texas  upon  the  east.  An  uncertain,  undefined  boundary  divided  them; 
and,  so  long  as  they  remained  one  State,  there  was  no  necessity  for  estab 
lishing  the  true  line.  It  is  immaterial,  therefore,  whether  the  Nueces  or 
the  Rio  del  Norte,  or  an  imaginary  line  between  the  two,  was  the  boundary 
between  Coahuila  and  Texas,  while  these  provinces  constituted  one  State 
in  the  Mexican  confederacy.  I  do  not  deem  it  necessary  to  go  back  to  a 
period  anterior  to  the  Texan  revolution  to  ascertain  the  limits  and  bounda 
ries  of  the  republic  of  Texas.  But,  if  the  gentleman  has  so  great  a  reverence 
for  antiquity  as  to  reject  all  authorities  which  have  not  become  obsolete 
and  inapplicable  in  consequence  of  the  changed  relations  of  that  country, 
I  will  gratify  his  taste  in  that  respect.  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  Texas 
(before  her  revolution)  was  always  understood  to  have  been  a  portion  of 
the  old  French  province  of  Louisiana,  whilst  Coahuila  was  one  of  the  Spanish 
provinces  of  Mexico.  By  ascertaining  the  western  boundary  of  Louisiana, 
therefore,  prior  to  its  transfer  by  France  to  Spain,  we  discover  the  divid 
ing  line  between  Texas  and  Coahuila.  I  will  not  weary  the  patience  of  the 
House  by  an  examination  of  the  authorities,  in  detail,  by  which  this  point 
is  elucidated  and  established.  I  will  content  myself  by  referring  the  gen 
tleman  to  a  document  in  which  he  will  find  them  all  collected  and  analyzed 
in  a  masterly  manner,  by  one  whose  learning  and  accuracy  he  will  not 
question.  I  allude  to  a  despatch  (perhaps  I  might  with  propriety  call  it  a 
book,  from  its  great  length)  written  by  our  Secretary  of  State  in  1819  to 


ZACHARY  TAYLOR 


APPENDIX  161 

Don  Onis,  the  Spanish  minister.  The  document  is  to  be  found  in  the  State 
Papers  in  each  of  our  libraries.  He  will  there  find  a  multitudinous  collec 
tion  of  old  maps  and  musty  records,  histories  and  geographies  —  Spanish, 
English,  and  French  —  by  which  it  is  clearly  established  that  the  Rio  del 
Norte  was  the  western  boundary  of  Louisiana,  and  so  considered  by  Spain 
and  France  both,  when  they  owned  the  opposite  banks  of  that  river.  The 
venerable  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  [Mr.  Adams]  in  that  famous 
despatch  reviews  all  the  authorities  on  either  side  with  a  clearness  and 
ability  which  defy  refutation,  and  demonstrate  the  validity  of  our  title  in 
virtue  of  the  purchase  of  Louisiana.  He  went  farther,  and  expressed  his 
own  convictions,  upon  a  full  examination  of  the  whole  question,  that  our 
title  as  far  as  the  Rio  del  Norte  was  as  clear  as  to  the  island  of  New  Orleans. 
This  was  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Adams  in  1819.  It  was  the  opinion  of  Messrs. 
Monroe  and  Pinckney  in  1805.  It  was  the  opinion  of  Jefferson  and  Madison 
—  of  all  our  Presidents  and  of  all  administrations,  from  its  acquisition  in 
1803  to  its  fatal  relinquishment  in  1819.  I  make  no  question  with  the  gen 
tleman  as  to  the  applicability  and  bearing  of  these  facts  upon  the  point 
in  controversy.  I  give  them  in  opposition  to  the  supposed  facts  upon  which 
he  seems  to  rely.  I  give  him  the  opinions  of  these  eminent  statesmen  in 
response  to  those  of  Almonte  and  his  brother  Mexican  general.  Will  the 
gentleman  tell  us  and  his  constituents  that  those  renowned  statesmen, 
including  his  distinguished  friend  [Mr.  Adams],  as  well  as  President  Polk 
and  the  American  Congress,  were  engaged  in  an  unholy,  unrighteous,  and 
damnable  cause  when  claiming  title  to  the  Rio  del  Norte?  I  leave  the 
gentleman  from  Ohio  and  his  venerable  friend  from  Massachusetts  to 
settle  the  disputed  point  of  the  old  boundary  of  Texas  between  themselves, 
trusting  that  they  may  agree  upon  some  basis  of  amicable  adjustment  and 
compromise.  But,  sir,  I  have  already  said  that  I  do  not  deem  it  necessary 
to  rely  upon  those  ancient  authorities  for  a  full  and  complete  justification 
of  our  Government  in  maintaining  possession  of  the  country  on  the  left 
bank  of  the  Rio  del  Norte,  Our  justification  rests  upon  better  and  higher 
evidence,  upon  a  firmer  basis — an  immutable  principle.  The  republic  of 
Texas  held  the  country  by  a  more  glorious  title  than  can  be  traced  through 
the  old  maps  and  musty  records  of  French  and  Spanish  courts.  She  held 
it  by  the  same  title  that  our  fathers  of  the  Revolution  acquired  the  terri 
tory  and  achieved  the  independence  of  this  republic.  She  held  it  by  virtue 
of  a  successful  revolution,  a  declaration  of  independence  setting  forth 
the  inalienable  rights  of  man,  triumphantly  maintained  by  the  irresistible 
power  of  her  arms,  and  consecrated  by  the  precious  blood  of  her  glorious 
heroes.  These  were  her  muniments  of  title.  By  these  she  acquired  the 
empire  which  she  has  voluntarily  annexed  to  our  Union,  and  which  we 
have  plighted  our  faith  to  protect  and  defend  against  invasion  and  dis 
memberment.  We  received  the  republic  of  Texas  into  the  Union  with 
her  entire  territory  as  an  independent  and  sovereign  State,  and  have  no 
right  to  alienate  or  surrender  any  portion  of  it.  This  proposition  our 
opponents  admit,  so  far  as  respects  the  country  on  this  side  of  the  Nueces, 
but  they  deny  both  the  obligation  and  the  right  to  go  beyond  tliat  river. 

11 


162  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 

Upon  what  authority  they  assume  the  Nueces  to  have  been  the  boundary 
of  the  republic  of  Texas  they  have  not  condescended  to  inform  us.  I  am 
unable  to  conceive  upon  what  grounds  a  distinction  can  be  drawn  as  to 
our  right  to  the  opposite  sides  of  that  stream.  I  know  nothing  in  the  his 
tory  of  that  republic,  from  its  birth  to  its  translation,  that  would  authorize 
the  assumption.  The  same  principles  and  evidence  which,  by  common 
consent,  give  us  title  on  this  side  of  the  Nueces,  establish  our  right  to  the 
other.  The  revolution  extended  to  either  side  of  the  river,  and  was  alike 
successful  on  both.  Upon  this  point  I  speak  with  confidence,  for  I  have 
taken  the  precaution,  within  the  last  few  minutes,  to  have  the  facts  to 
which  I  shall  refer  authenticated  by  the  testimony  of  the  two  most  distin 
guished  actors  (one  of  whom  I  now  recognize  in  my  eye)  of  those  thrilling 
and  glorious  scenes.  Upon  this  high  authority,  I  assume  that  the  first 
revolutionary  army  in  Texas,  in  1835,  embraced  soldiers  and  officers  who 
were  residents  of  the  country  between  the  Nueces  and  the  Rio  del  Norte. 
These  same  heroic  men,  or  so  many  of  them  as  had  not  been  butchered  by 
the  Mexican  soldiery,  were  active  participators  in  the  battle  of  San  Jacinto 
on  the  twenty-first  of  April,  1836,  when  Santa  Ana  was  captured  and  the 
Mexican  army  annihilated. 

Although  few  in  number,  and  sparsely  scattered  over  a  wide  surface  of 
country,  and  consequently  exposed  to  the  cruelties  and  barbarities  of  the 
enemy,  none  were  more  faithful  to  the  cause  of  freedom,  and  constant  in 
their  devotion  to  the  interests  of  the  republic  throughout  its  existence. 
Immediately  after  the  battle  of  San  Jacinto,  Santa  Ana  made  a  proposition 
to  the  commander  of  the  Texan  army  (General  Houston)  to  make  a  treaty 
of  peace,  by  which  Mexico  would  recognize  the  independence  of  Texas,  with 
the  Rio  del  Norte  as  the  boundary.  In  May,  1836,  such  a  treaty  was  made 
between  the  Government  of  Texas  and  Santa  Ana  on  the  part  of  the  Mexican 
nation,  in  which  the  independence  of  Texas  was  acknowledged,  and  the 
Rio  del  Norte  recognized  as  the  boundary.  In  pursuance  of  the  provision 
of  this  treaty,  the  remnant  of  the  Mexican  army  was  permitted,  under  the 
orders  of  Santa  Ana,  to  retire  beyond  the  confines  of  the  republic  of  Texas, 
and  take  a  position  on  the  other  side  of  the  Rio  del  Norte,  which  they 
did  accordingly.  ...  It  is  immaterial  whether  Mexico  has  or  has  not 
disavowed  Santa  Ana's  treaty  with  Texas.  It  was  executed  at  the  time  by 
competent  authority.  She  availed  herself  of  all  its  benefits.  By  virtue  of 
it  she  saved  the  remnant  of  her  army  from  total  annihilation,  and  had  her 
captive  dictator  restored  to  liberty.  Under  it  she  was  permitted  to  remove, 
in  peace  and  security,  all  her  soldiers,  citizens,  and  property,  beyond  the 
Rio  del  Norte.  The  question  is,  had  she  a  moral  and  legal  right  to  repu 
diate  it  after  she  had  enjoyed  all  its  advantages? 

The  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  attempts  to  apply  the  legal  maxims 
relative  to  civil  contracts  to  this  transaction.  Because  an  individual  who 
enters  into  a  contract  while  in  duress  has  a  right  to  disavow  it  when  re 
stored  to  his  liberty,  he  can  see  no  reason  why  Santa  Ana  could  not  do  the 
same  thing.  I  shall  not  go  into  an  argument  to  prove  that  the  rights  of 
a  nation,  in  time  of  war,  are  not  identical  with  those  of  a  citizen,  under 


SAM  HOUSTON 


APPENDIX  163 

the  municipal  laws  of  his  own  country,  in  a  state  of  peace.  But  if  I  should 
admit  the  justness  of  the  supposed  parallel,  I  apprehend  the  gentleman 
would  not  insist  upon  the  right  to  rescind  the  contract  without  placing  the 
parties  in  statu  quo;  for  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  Santa  Ana  was  a 
prisoner  according  to  the  rules  of  war,  and  consequently  in  lawful  custody. 
Is  the  gentleman  prepared  to  show  that  the  Mexican  Government  ever  pro 
posed  to  rescind  the  treaty,  and  place  the  parties  in  the  same  relative 
position  they  occupied  on  the  day  of  its  execution?  Did  they  ever  offer 
to  send  Santa  Ana  and  his  defeated  army  back  to  San  Jacinto,  to  remain 
as  General  Houston's  prisoners  until  the  Texan  Government  should  dis 
pose  of  them  according  to  its  discretion,  under  the  laws  of  nations?  But 
I  must  return  from  this  digression  to  the  main  point  of  my  argument.  I 
was  proceeding  with  my  proof,  when  these  interruptions  commenced,  to 
show  that  the  Rio  del  Norte  was  the  boundary  between  Texas  and  Mexico, 
and  has  been  so  claimed  on  the  one  side  and  recognized  on  the  other  ever 
since  the  battle  of  San  Jacinto.  I  have  already  referred  to  the  fact  that 
the  country  west  of  the  Nueces  had  her  soldiers  in  the  Texan  army  during 
the  campaigns  of  1835  and  1836,  and  that  the  treaty  of  peace  and  inde 
pendence  between  Santa  Ana  and  the  Texan  Government  recognized  the 
Rio  del  Norte  as  the  boundary.  I  have  also  referred  to  the  fact  that  the 
Mexican  army  was  removed  from  Texas,  in  pursuance  of  that  treaty,  to 
the  west  bank  of  that  stream.  I  am  informed  by  high  authority  that 
General  Filisola  received  instructions  from  the  authorities  in  Mexico,  who 
were  exercising  the  functions  of  government  in  Santa  Ana's  absence,  to 
enter  into  any  arrangement  with  the  Texan  Government  which  should  be 
necessary  to  save  the  Mexican  army  from  destruction,  and  secure  its  safe 
retreat  from  that  country;  and  that,  in  pursuance  of  those  instructions, 
he  did  ratify  Santa  Ana's  treaty  previous  to  marching  the  army  beyond 
the  Rio  del  Norte.  My  friend  from  Mississippi,  before  me  [Mr.  Davis], 
who  has  investigated  the  subject,  assures  me  that  such  is  the  fact.  My 
own  recollection  accords  with  his  statement  in  this  respect.  These  facts 
clearly  show  that  Mexico,  at  that  time,  regarded  the  revolution  as  success 
ful  as  far  as  the  Rio  del  Norte,  and  consequently  that  the  river  must  neces 
sarily  become  the  boundary  whenever  the  independence  of  the  new  republic 
should  be  firmly  established.  Subsequent  transactions  prove  that  the 
two  countries  have  ever  since  acted  on  the  same  supposition.  Texas  im 
mediately  proceeded  to  form  a  Constitution  and  establish  a  permanent 
Government.  The  country  between  the  Nueces  and  the  Rio  del  Norte 
was  represented  in  the  convention  which  formed  her  Constitution  in  1836. 
James  Powers,  an  actual  resident  of  the  territory  now  in  dispute,  was 
elected  a  delegate  by  the  people  residing  there,  and  participated  in  the 
proceedings  of  the  convention  as  one  of  its  members.  The  first  Congress 
which  assembled  under  the  Constitution  proceeded  to  define  the  bounda 
ries  of  the  republic,  to  establish  courts  of  jurisdiction,  and  the  exercise  of 
all  the  powers  of  sovereignty  over  the  whole  territory.  One  of  the  first 
acts  of  that  Congress  declares  the  Rio  del  Norte,  from  its  mouth  to  its 
source,  to  be  the  boundary  between  Texas  and  Mexico,  and  the  others 


164  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

provide  for  the  exercise  of  jurisdiction.  Counties  were  established,  reach 
ing  across  the  Nueces,  and  even  to  the  Rio  del  Norte,  as  fast  as  the  tide 
of  emigration  advanced  in  that  direction.  Corpus  Christi,  Point  Isabel, 
and  General  Taylor's  camp,  opposite  Matamoros,  are  all  within  the  county 
of  San  Patricio,  in  the  State  of  Texas,  according  to  our  recent  maps.  That 
same  county,  from  the  day  of  its  formation,  constituted  a  portion  of  one 
of  the  Congressional  districts,  and  also  of  a  Senatorial  district  in  the 
republic  of  Texas;  it  now  forms  a  portion,  if  not  the  whole,  of  a  represen 
tative  district,  and  also  a  Senatorial  district,  for  the  election  of  represen 
tatives  and  senators  to  the  Texan  Legislature,  as  well  as  a  Congressional 
district  for  the  election  of  a  representative  to  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States.  Colonel  Kinney,  who  emigrated  from  my  own  State,  has  resided 
in  that  country,  between  the  Nueces  and  the  Rio  del  Norte,  for  many  years ; 
has  represented  it  in  the  Congress  of  the  republic  of  Texas,  also  in  the 
convention  which  formed  the  Constitution  of  the  State  of  Texas,  and  now 
represents  it  in  the  Texan  Senate.  I  know  not  what  stronger  evidence 
could  be  desired  that  the  country  in  question  was,  in  fact,  a  portion  of  the 
republic  of  Texas,  and,  as  a  consequence,  is  now  a  portion  of  the  United 
States.  If  an  express  acknowledgment  by  Mexico  of  the  Rio  del  Norte 
as  the  boundary  is  deemed  essential,  and  the  recognition  of  that  fact  in 
Santa  Ana's  treaty,  and  subsequently  by  Filisola,  is  not  considered  suffi 
cient,  I  will  endeavor  to  furnish  further  and  more  recent  evidence,  which, 
I  trust,  will  be  satisfactory  on  that  point.  I  have  not  the  papers  to  which 
I  shall  refer  before  me  at  this  moment,  but  they  are  of  such  general  notoriety 
that  they  cannot  fail  to  be  within  the  recollection  of  the  members  of  the 
House  generally.  It  will  be  remembered  that  when  we  were  discussing  the 
propriety  and  expediency  of  the  annexation  of  Texas  some  two  years  ago, 
much  was  said  about  an  armistice  entered  into  between  Mexico  and  Texas 
for  the  suspension  of  hostilities  for  a  limited  period.  Well,  that  armistice 
was  agreed  to  by  the  twro  governments,  and  in  the  proclamation  announc 
ing  the  fact  by  the  Mexican  Government,  the  Mexican  forces  were  required 
to  retire  from  the  territory  of  Texas  to  the  west  side  of  the  Rio  del  Norte. 
This  proclamation  was  issued,  as  near  as  I  recollect,  in  1843  or  1844,  just 
before  the  treaty  of  annexation  was  signed  by  President  Tyler,  and  at  a 
period  when  Mexico  had  had  sufficient  time  to  recover  from  the  dizziness 
of  the  shock  at  San  Jacinto,  and  to  ascertain  to  what  extent  the  revolution 
had  been  successful,  and  where  the  true  boundary  was.  She  was  not  a 
prisoner  of  war,  nor  in  duress,  at  the  time  she  issued  this  proclamation. 
It  was  her  own  deliberate  act  (so  far  as  deliberation  ever  attends  her 
action),  done  of  her  own  volition.  In  that  proclamation  she  clearly  recog 
nizes  the  Rio  del  Norte  as  the  boundary,  and  that,  too,  in  view  of  a  treaty 
of  peace,  by  which  the  independence  of  Texas  was  to  be  again  acknowledged.' 

Mr.  Adams.  I  wish  to  ask  the  gentleman  from  Illinois  if  the  last  Con 
gress  did  not  pass  an  act  regulating  trade  and  commerce  to  the  foreign 
province  of  Santa  Fe? 

Mr.  Douglas.  I  believe  the  last  Congress  did  pass  an  act  upon  that  sub 
ject,  and  I  will  remind  the  gentleman  that  the  present  Congress  has  passed 


APPENDIX  165 

an  act  extending  the  revenue  laws  of  the  United  States  over  the  country 
between  the  Rio  del  Norte  and  the  Nueces,  and  providing  for  the  appoint 
ment  of  custom-house  officers  to  reside  there.  As  near  as  I  recollect,  the 
gentleman  from  Massachusetts  and  myself  voted  for  both  of  those  acts. 
The  only  difference  between  us,  in  this  respect,  was,  that  he,  being  a  little 
more  zealous  than  myself,  made  a  speech  for  the  last  one  —  for  the  act  ex 
tending  our  laws  over  and  taking  legal  possession  of  the  very  country  where 
General  Taylor's  army  is  now  encamped,  and  which  he  now  asserts  to 
belong  to  Mexico.  That  act  passed  this  Congress  unanimously  at  the 
present  session,  taking  legal  possession  of  the  whole  country  in  dispute, 
and  of  course  making  it  the  sworn  duty  of  the  President  to  see  its  pro 
visions  faithfully  executed.  In  the  name  of  truth  and  justice,  I  ask  the 
gentleman  from  Massachusetts,  and  his  followers  in  this  crusade,  how 
they  can  justify  it  to  their  consciences  to  denounce  the  President  for  send 
ing  the  army  to  protect  the  lives  of  our  citizens  there  and  defend  the 
country  from  invasion,  after  they  had  voted  to  take  legal  possession  by 
the  extension  of  our  laws?  They  had  asserted  our  right  to  the  country 
by  a  solemn  act  of  Congress ;  had  erected  it  into  a  collection  district,  and 
the  Constitution  required  the  President  to  appoint  the  officers,  and  see  the 
laws  faithfully  executed.  He  had  done  so ;  and  for  this  simple  discharge 
of  a  duty  enjoined  upon  him  by  a  law  for  which  they  voted,  he  is  assailed, 
in  the  coarsest  terms  known  to  our  language,  as  having  committed  an  act 
which  is  unholy,  unrighteous,  and  damnable !  But  I  feel  it  due  to  the 
venerable  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  to  respond  more  particularly 
to  his  inquiry  in  regard  to  the  act  of  the  last  Congress  regulating  commerce 
and  trade  to  Santa  Fe\  I  do  not  now  recollect  its  exact  provisions,  nor  is 
it  important,  inasmuch  as  that  act  was  passed  before  Texas  was  annexed 
to  this  Union.  Of  course  Santa  F6  was  foreign  to  us  at  that  time,  whether 
it  belonged  to  Texas  or  Mexico.  The  object  of  that  act  was  to  regulate  the 
trade  across  our  western  frontier  between  us  and  foreign  countries.  Texas 
was  then  foreign  to  us,  but  is  no  longer  so  since  her  annexation  and  admis 
sion  into  the  Union.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  believe  I  have  now  said  all  that  I 
intended  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  the  Rio  del  Norte  was  the  wrestern 
boundary  of  the  republic  of  Texas.  How  far  I  have  succeeded  in  estab 
lishing  the  position,  I  leave  to  the  House  and  the  country  to  determine. 
If  that  was  the  boundary  of  the  republic  of  Texas,  it  has,  of  course,  be 
come  the  boundary  of  the  United  States  by  virtue  of  the  acts  of  annexa 
tion  and  admission  into  the  Union.  I  will  not  say  that  I  have  demonstrated 
the  question  as  satisfactorily  as  the  distinguished  gentleman  from  Massa 
chusetts  did  in  1819,  but  I  will  say  that  I  think  I  am  safe  in  adopting  the 
sentiment  which  he  then  expressed  —  that  our  title  to  the  Rio  del  Norte 
is  as  clear  as  to  the  island  of  New  Orleans.  .  .  . 

Mr.  Adams.  I  never  said  that  our  title  was  good  to  the  Rio  del  Norte 
from  its  mouth  to  its  source. 

Mr.  Douglas.  I  know  nothing  of  the  gentleman's  mental  reservations. 
If  he  means,  by  his  denial,  to  place  the  whole  emphasis  on  the  qualification 
that  he  did  not  claim  that  river  as  the  boundary  "from  its  mouth  to  its 


166  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

source,'1  I  shall  not  dispute  with  him  on  that  point.  But  if  he  wishes  to  be 
understood  as  denying  that  he  ever  claimed  the  Rio  del  Norte,  in  general 
terms,  as  our  boundary  under  the  Louisiana  treaty,  I  can  furnish  him  with 
an  official  document,  over  his  own  signature,  which  he  will  find  very  em 
barrassing  and  exceedingly  difficult  to  explain.  I  allude  to  his  famous 
despatch  as  Secretary  of  State,  in  1819,  to  Don  Onis,  the  Spanish  minister. 
I  am  not  certain  that  I  can  prove  his  handwriting,  for  the  copy  I  have  in 
my  possession  I  find  printed  in  the  American  State  Papers,  published  by 
order  of  Congress.  In  that  paper  he  not  only  claimed  the  Rio  del  Norte 
as  our  boundary,  but  he  demonstrated  the  validity  of  the  claim  by  a  train 
of  facts  and  arguments  which  rivet  conviction  on  every  impartial  mind, 
and  defy  refutation. 

Mr.  Adams.  I  wrote  that  despatch  as  Secretary  of  State,  and  endeavored 
to  make  out  the  best  case  I  could  for  my  own  country,  as  it  was  my  duty ; 
but  I  utterly  deny  that  I  claimed  the  Rio  del  Norte  as  our  boundary  in  its 
full  extent.  I  only  claimed  it  a  short  distance  up  the  river,  and  then 
diverged  northward  some  distance  from  the  stream. 

Mr.  Douglas.  Will  the  gentleman  specify  the  point  at  which  his  line  left 
the  river? 

Mr.  Adams.     I  never  designated  the  point. 

Mr.  Douglas.     Was  it  above  Matamoros? 

Mr.  Adams.     I  never  specified  any  particular  place. 

Mr.  Douglas.  I  am  well  aware  that  the  gentleman  never  specified  any 
point  of  departure  for  his  northward  line,  which,  he  now  informs  us,  was 
to  run  a  part  of  the  way  on  the  east  side  of  that  river;  for  he  claimed  the 
river  as  the  boundary  in  general  terms,  without  any  qualification.  But 
his  present  admission  is  sufficient  for  my  purposes,  if  he  will  only  specify 
the  point  from  which  he  then  understood  or  now  understands  that  his  line 
was  to  have  diverged  from  the  river.  ...  I  leave  it  to  the  candor  of  every 
honest  man  whether  the  executive  did  not  do  his  duty,  and  nothing  but 
his  duty,  when  he  ordered  the  army  to  the  Rio  del  Norte.  Should  he  have 
folded  his  arms,  and  allowed  our  citizens  to  be  murdered  and  our  territory 
invaded  with  impunity?  Have  we  not  forborne  to  act,  either  offensively 
or  defensively,  until  our  forbearance  is  construed  into  cowardice,  and  is 
exciting  contempt  from  those  toward  whom  we  have  exercised  our  magna 
nimity?  We  have  a  long  list  of  grievances,  a  long  catalogue  of  wrongs  to 
be  avenged.  The  war  has  commenced ;  blood  has  been  shed ;  our  territory 
invaded ;  all  by  the  act  of  the  enemy. 

I  had  hoped  and  trusted  that  there  would  be  no  anti-war  party  after 
war  was  declared.  In  this  I  have  been  sadly  disappointed.  I  have  been 
particularly  mortified  to  see  one  with  whom  I  have  acted  on  the  Oregon 
question,  who  was  ready  to  plunge  the  country  into  immediate  war,  if 
necessary,  to  maintain  the  rights  and  honor  of  the  country  in  that  direc 
tion,  now  arraying  himself  on  the  side  of  the  enemy  when  our  country  is 
invaded  by  another  portion  of  the  Union.  To  me,  our  country  and  all  its 
parts  are  one  and  indivisible.  I  would  rally  under  her  standard  in  the 
defence  of  one  portion  as  soon  as  another  —  the  South  as  soon  as  the 


GENERAL  SANTA  ANA 


APPENDIX  167 

North;  for  Texas  as  soon  as  Oregon.  And  I  will  here  do  my  Southern 
friends  the  justice  to  say  that  I  firmly  believe,  and  never  doubted  that, 
if  war  had  arisen  out  of  the  Oregon  question,  when  once  declared,  they 
would  have  been  found  shoulder  to  shoulder  with  me  as  firmly  as  I  shall 
be  with  them  in  this  Mexican  war. 

Mr.  Adams.  I  thought  I  understood  the  gentleman  some  time  ago, 
while  standing  on  54°  40',  to  tell  his  Southern  friends  that  he  wanted  no 
dodging  on  the  Oregon  question. 

Mr.  Douglas.    I  did  stand  on  54°  40' ;   I  stand  there  now,  and  never  in 
tend,  by  any  act  of  mine,  to  surrender  the  position.    I  am  as  ready  and 
willing  to  fight  for  54°  40'  as  for  the  Rio  del  Norte.    My  patriotism  is  not 
of  that  kind  which  would  induce  me  to  go  to  war  to  enlarge  one  section  of 
the  Union  out  of  mere  hatred  and  vengeance  toward  the  other.     I  have 
no  personal  or  political  griefs  resulting  from  the  past  to  embitter  my  feel 
ings  and  inflame  my  resentment  toward  any  section  of  our  country.     I 
know  no  sections,  no  divisions.    I  did  complain  of  a  few  of  my  Southern 
friends  on  the  Oregon  question ;  did  tell  them  that  I  wished  to  see  no  dodg 
ing;  endeavored  to  rally  them  on  54°  40'  as  our  fighting  line,  regardless  of 
consequences,  war  or  no  war.    But,  while  they  declined  to  assume  this  posi 
tion  in  a  time  of  peace,  they  unanimously  avowed  their  determination  to 
stand  by  the  country  the  moment  war  was  declared.    But,  since  the  gentle 
man  from  Massachusetts  has  dragged  the  Oregon  question  into  this  debate, 
I  wish  to  call  his  attention  to  one  of  his  wise  sayings  on  that  subject,  and  see 
if  he  is  not  willing  to  apply  it  to  Texas  as  well  as  Oregon,  to  Mexico  as  well 
as  Great  Britain.    He  recalled  to  the  mind  of  the  House  that  passage  of 
history  in  which  the  great  Frederick  took  military  possession  of  Silesia, 
and  immediately  proposed  to  settle  the  question  of  title  and  boundaries 
by  negotiation.    During  the  Oregon  debate  he  avowed  himself  in  favor  of 
Frederick's  plan  for  the  settlement  of  that  question,  "Take  possession  first, 
and  negotiate  afterward."     I  desire  to  know  why  the  gentleman  is  not 
willing  to  apply  this  principle  to  the  country  on  the  Rio  del  Norte  as  well 
as  Oregon?    According  to  his  own  showing,  that  is  precisely  what  Presi 
dent  Polk  has  done.    He  has  taken  possession,  and  proposed  to  negotiate. 
In  this  respect  the  President  has  adopted  the  advice  of  the  gentleman  from 
Massachusetts,  and  followed  the  example  of  the  great  Frederick.    The  only 
difference  in  the  two  cases  is  that  the  President  was  maintaining  a  legal 
possession,  which  Congress  had  previously  taken  by  the  extension  of  our 
laws.     For  this  he  is  also  abused.     He  is  condemned  alike  for  using  the 
sword  and  the  olive  branch.    His  enemies  object  to  his  efforts  for  amicable 
adjustment  as  well  as  to  the  movements  of  the  army.    All  is  wrong  in  their 
eyes.    Their  country  is  always  wrong,  and  its  enemies  right.    It  has  ever 
been  so.    It  was  so  in  the  last  war  with  Great  Britain.    Then  it  was  unbe 
coming  a  moral  and  religious  people  to  rejoice  at  the  success  of  American 
arms.    We  were  wrong,  in  their  estimation,  in  the  French  Indemnity  case, 
in  the  Florida  war,  in  all  the  Indian  wars,  and  now  in  the  Mexican  war. 
I  despair  of  ever  seeing  my  country  again  in  the  right,  if  they  are  to  be  the 
oracles. 


ON  THE   OREGON   BOUNDARY 

(Extracts  from  two  speeches) 

IT  therefore  becomes  us  to  put  this  nation  in  a  state  of  defence;  and, 
when  we  are  told  that  this  will  lead  to  war,  all  I  have  to  say  is  this,  violate 
no  treaty  stipulations,  nor  any  principle  of  the  law  of  nations;  preserve 
the  honor  and  integrity  of  the  country,  but,  at  the  same  time,  assert  our 
right  to  the  last  inch,  and  then,  if  war  comes,  let  it  come.  We  may  regret 
the  necessity  which  produced  it,  but  when  it  does  come,  I  would  administer 
to  our  citizens  Hannibal's  oath  of  eternal  enmity,  and  not  terminate  the 
war  until  the  question  was  settled  forever.  I  would  blot  out  the  lines  on 
the  map  which  now  mark  our  national  boundaries  on  this  continent,  and 
make  the  area  of  liberty  as  broad  as  the  continent  itself.  I  would  not 
suffer  petty  rival  republics  to  grow  up  here,  engendering  jealousy  of  each 
other,  and  interfering  with  each  other's  domestic  affairs,  and  continually 
endangering  their  peace.  I  do  not  wish  to  go  beyond  the  great  ocean  — 
beyond  those  boundaries  which  the  God  of  nature  has  marked  out,  I  would 
limit  myself  only  by  that  boundary  which  is  so  clearly  denned  by  nature. 


Our  federal  system  is  admirably  adapted  to  the  whole  continent;  and, 
while  I  would  not  violate  the  laws  of  nations,  nor  treaty  stipulations,  nor 
in  any  manner  tarnish  the  national  honor,  I  would  exert  all  legal  and 
honorable  means  to  drive  Great  Britain  and  the  last  vestiges  of  royal  au 
thority  from  the  continent  of  North  America,  and  extend  the  limits  of  the 
republic  from  ocean  to  ocean.  I  would  make  this  an  ocean-bound  republic, 
and  have  no  more  disputes  about  boundaries,  or  "red  lines"  upon  the 
maps. 


SPEECH   IN  THE   SENATE   ON   OUR  POLICY  WITH   FOREIGN 
NATIONS  —  CLAYTON-BULWER  TREATY 

(Delivered  February  14,  1853) 

THIRTY  years  ago,  Mr.  Monroe,  in  his  message  to  Congress,  made  a  mem 
orable  declaration  with  respect  to  European  colonization  upon  this  con 
tinent.  That  declaration  has  ever  since  been  a  favorite  subject  of  eulogism 
with  orators,  politicians,  and  statesmen.  Recently  it  has  assumed  the 
dignified  appellation  of  the  "Monroe  doctrine."  It  seems  to  be  the  part 
of  patriotism  for  all  to  profess  that  doctrine,  while  our  Government  has 
scarcely  ever  failed  to  repudiate  it  practically  whenever  an  opportunity 
for  its  observance  has  been  presented.  The  Oregon  treaty  is  a  noted  case 
in  point.  Prior  to  that  convention  there  was  no  British  colony  on  this 
continent  west  of  the  Rocky  Mountains.  The  Hudson's  Bay  Company  was 
confined  by  its  charter  to  the  shores  of  the  bay,  and  to  the  streams  flowing 
into  it,  and  to  the  country  drained  by  them.  The  western  boundary  of 
Canada  was  hundreds  of  miles  distant ;  and  there  was  no  European  colony 
to  be  found  in  all  that  region  on  the  Pacific  coast  stretching  from  California 
to  the  Russian  possessions.  We  had  a  treaty  of  non-occupancy  with  Great 
Britain,  by  the  provisions  of  which  neither  party  was  to  be  permitted  to 
colonize  or  assume  dominion  over  any  portion  of  that  territory.  We 
abrogated  that  treaty  of  non-occupancy,  and  then  entered  into  a  conven 
tion,  by  the  terms  of  which  the  country  in  question  was  divided  into  two 
nearly  equal  parts,  by  the  parallel  of  the  forty-ninth  degree  of  latitude, 
and  all  on  the  north  confirmed  to  Great  Britain,  and  that  on  the  south 
to  the  United  States.  By  that  treaty  Great  Britain  consented  that  we 
might  establish  Territories  and  States  south  of  the  forty-ninth  parallel, 
and  the  United  States  consented  that  Great  Britain  might,  to  the  north 
of  that  parallel,  establish  new  European  colonies,  in  open  and  flagrant 
violation  of  the  Monroe  doctrine.  It  is  unnecessary  for  me  to  remind  the 
country,  and  especially  my  own  constituents,  with  what  energy  and  em 
phasis  I  protested  against  that  convention,  upon  the  ground  that  it  car 
ried  with  it  the  undisguised  repudiation  of  the  Monroe  declaration,  and  the 
consent  of  this  republic  that  new  British  colonies  might  be  established  on 
that  portion  of  the  North  American  continent  where  none  existed  before. 

Again:  as  late  as  1850  a  convention  was  entered  into  between  the  Gov 
ernment  of  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  called  the  Clayton  and 
Bulwer  treaty,  every  article  and  provision  of  which  is  predicated  upon  a 
practical  negation  and  repudiation  of  what  is  known  as  the  Monroe  doc 
trine,  as  I  shall  conclusively  establish  before  I  close  these  remarks.  Since 


1VO  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 

the  ratification  of  that  treaty  and  in  defiance  of  its  express  stipulations, 
as  well  as  of  the  Monroe  declaration,  Great  Britain  has  planted  a  new 
colony  in  Central  America,  known  as  the  colony  of  the  Bay  Islands.  In 
view  of  this  fact,  and  with  the  colony  of  the  Bay  Islands  in  his  mind's  eye, 
the  venerable  senator  from  Michigan  lays  upon  the  table  of  the  Senate, 
and  asks  us  to  affirm  by  our  votes,  a  resolution  in  which  it  is  declared  that 
"WHILE  EXISTING  RIGHTS  SHOULD  BE  RESPECTED,  AND  WILL  BE  BY  THE 
UNITED  STATES,"  the  American  continents  "ARE  HENCEFORTH  not  to  be 
considered  as  subjects  for  FUTURE  colonization  by  any  European  power,'' 
and  "that  no  FUTURE  European  colony  or  dominion  shall,  with  their  consent, 
be  planted  or  established  on  any  part  of  tlie  North  American  continent" 

Now,  sir,  before  I  vote  for  this  resolution,  I  desire  to  understand,  with 
clearness  and  precision,  its  purport  and  meaning.  Existing  rights  are  to 
be  respected  !  What  is  to  be  the  construction  of  this  clause  ?  Is  it  that  all 
colonies  established  in  America  by  European  powers  prior  to  the  passage 
of  this  resolution  are  to  be  respected  by  the  United  States  as  "existing 
rights  "  ?  Is  this  resolution  to  be  understood  as  a  formal  and  official  declar 
ation,  by  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  of  our  acquiescence  in  the 
seizure  of  the  islands  in  the  Bay  of  Honduras,  and  the  erection  of  them 
into  a  new  British  colony?  When,  in  connection  with  this  clause  respect 
ing  "existing  rights,"  we  take  into  consideration  the  one  preceding  it,  in 
which  it  is  declared  that  "HENCEFORTH"  the  American  continents  are  not 
open  to  European  colonization;  and  the  clause  immediately  succeeding 
it,  which  says  that  "no  future  European  colony  or  dominion"  shall,  with 
our  consent,  be  planted  on  the  North  American  continent,  who  can  doubt 
that  Great  Britain  will  feel  herself  authorized  to  construe  the  resolution 
into  a  declaration  on  our  part  of  unconditional  acquiescence  in  her  right 
to  hold  all  the  colonies  and  dependencies  she  at  this  time  may  possess  in 
America?  Is  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  prepared  to  make  such  a 
declaration?  Is  this  republic,  in  view  of  our  professions  for  the  last  thirty 
years,  and  of  our  present  and  prospective  position,  prepared  to  submit  to 
such  a  result?  If  we  are,  let  us  seal  our  lips,  and  talk  no  more  about  Euro 
pean  colonization  upon  the  American  continents.  What  is  to  redeem  our 
declarations  upon  this  subject  in  the  future  from  utter  contempt,  if 
we  fail  to  vindicate  the  past,  and  meekly  submit  to  the  humiliation  of  the 
present?  With  an  avowed  policy,  of  thirty  years'  standing,  that  no  future 
European  colonization  is  to  be  permitted  in  America  —  affirmed  when 
there  was  no  opportunity  for  enforcing  it,  and  abandoned  whenever  a 
case  was  presented  for  carrying  it  into  practical  effect  —  is  it  now  pro 


posed  to  beat  another  retreat  under  cover  of  terrible  threats  of  awful  con 
sequences  when  the  offence  shall  be  repeated?  "Henceforth"  no  "future" 
European  colony  is  to  be  planted  in  America  "with  our  consent"!  It  is 


gratifying  to  learn  that  the  United  States  are  never  going  to  "consent" 
to  the  repudiation  of  the  Monroe  doctrine  again.  No  more  Clayton  and 
Bulwer  treaties;  no  more  British  "alliances"  in  Central  America,  New 
Granada,  or  Mexico;  no  more  resolutions  of  oblivion  to  protect  "existing 
rights"!  Let  England  tremble,  and  Europe  take  warning,  if  the  offence 


APPENDIX  171 

is  repeated.  "Should  the  attempt  be  made,"  says  the  resolution,  "it  will 
leave  the  United  States  free  to  adopt  such  measures  as  an  independent 
nation  may  justly  adopt  in  defence  of  its  rights  and  honor."  Are  not  the 
United  States  now  free  to  adopt  such  measures  as  an  independent  nation 
may  justly  adopt  in  defence  of  its  rights  and  honor?  Have  we  not  given  the 
notice  ?  Is  not  thirty  years  sufficient  notice  ?  And  has  it  not  been  repeated 
within  the  last  eight  years?  And  yet  the  deed  is  done  in  contempt  of  not 
only  the  Monroe  doctrine,  but  of  solemn  treaty  stipulations.  Will  you 
ever  have  a  better  opportunity  to  establish  the  doctrine  —  a  clearer  right 
to  vindicate,  or  a  more  flagrant  wrong  to  redress?  If  you  do  not  do  it 
now,  your  "henceforth"  resolutions,  in  respect  to  "future"  attempts, 
may  as  well  be  dispensed  with.  I  have  no  resolutions  to  bring  forward 
in  relation  to  our  foreign  policy.  Circumstances  have  deprived  me  of  the 
opportunity  or  disposition  to  participate  actively  in  the  proceedings  of 
the  Senate  this  session.  I  know  not  what  the  present  administration  has 
done  or  is  doing  in  reference  to  this  question ;  and  I  am  willing  to  leave 
the  incoming  administration  free  to  assume  its  own  position,  and  to  take 
the  initiation  unembarrassed  by  the  action  of  the  Senate. 

My  principal  object  in  addressing  the  Senate  to-day  is  to  avail  myself 
of  the  opportunity,  now  for  the  first  time  presented  by  the  removal  of  the 
injunction  of  secrecy,  of  explaining  my  reasons  for  opposing  the  ratifica 
tion  of  the  Clayton  and  Bulwer  treaty.  In  order  to  clearly  understand 
the  question  in  all  its  bearings,  it  is  necessary  to  advert  to  the  circum 
stances  under  which  it  was  presented.  The  Oregon  boundary  had  been 
established,  and  important  interests  had  grown  up  in  that  Territory; 
California  had  been  acquired,  and  an  immense  commerce  had  sprung  into 
existence;  lines  of  steamers  had  been  established  from  New  York  and 
New  Orleans  to  Chagres,  and  from  Panama  to  California  and  Oregon; 
American  citizens  had  acquired  the  right  of  way,  and  were  engaged  in 
the  construction  of  a  railroad  across  the  Isthmus  of  Panama,  under  the 
protection  of  treaty  stipulations  with  New  Granada;  other  American 
citizens  had  secured  the  right  of  way,  and  were  preparing  to  construct  a 
canal  from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific,  through  Lake  Nicaragua;  and 
still  other  American  citizens  had  procured  the  right  of  way,  and  were 
preparing  to  commence  the  construction  of  a  railroad,  under  a  grant  from 
Mexico,  across  the  Isthmus  of  Tehuantepec.  Thus  the  right  of  transit  on 
all  the  routes  across  the  isthmus  had  passed  into  American  hands,  and 
were  within  the  protection  and  control  of  the  American  Government. 

In  view  of  this  state  of  things,  Mr.  Hise,  who  had  been  appointed  charge 
d'affaires,  under  the  administration  of  Mr.  Polk,  to  the  Central  American 
States,  negotiated  a  treaty  with  the  State  of  Nicaragua  which  secured  to 
the  United  States  forever  the  exclusive  privilege  of  opening  and  using  all 
canals,  railroads,  and  other  means  of  communication,  from  the  Atlantic 
to  the  Pacific,  through  the  territory  of  that  republic.  The  rights,  privi 
leges,  and  immunities  conceded  by  that  treaty  were  all  that  any  American 
could  have  desired.  Its  provisions  are  presumed  to  be  within  the  knowl 
edge  of  every  senator,  and  ought  to  be  familiar  to  the  people  of  this  country. 


172  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 

The  grant  was  to  the  United  States,  or  to  such  companies  as  should  be  or 
ganized  under  its  authority,  or  received  under  its  protection.  The  privi 
leges  were  exclusive  in  their  terms  and  perpetual  in  their  tenure.  They 
were  to  continue  forever  as  inalienable  American  rights.  In  addition  to 
the  privilege  of  constructing  and  using  all  roads  and  canals  through  the 
territory  of  Nicaragua,  Mr.  Rise's  treaty  also  secured  to  the  United  States 
the  right  to  erect  and  garrison  such  fortifications  as  we  should  deem  neces 
sary  at  the  termini  of  such  communication  on  each  ocean,  and  at  inter 
mediate  points  along  the  lines  of  the  works,  together  with  a  grant  of  lands 
three  miles  square  at  the  termini  for  the  establishment  of  towns  with  free 
ports  and  free  institutions.  I  do  not  deem  it  necessary  to  detain  the  Senate 
by  reading  the  provisions  of  this  treaty.  It  is  published  in  the  document 
I  hold  in  my  hand,  and  is  open  to  every  one  who  chooses  to  examine  it. 
It  was  submitted  to  the  Department  of  State  in  Washington  on  the  fif 
teenth  of  September,  1849,  but  never  sent  to  the  Senate  for  ratification. 
In  the  meantime,  the  administration  of  General  Taylor  had  superseded 
Mr.  Hise  by  the  appointment  of  another  representative  to  the  Central 
American  States,  and  instructed  him,  in  procuring  a  grant  for  a  canal,  to 
"CLAIM  NO  PECULIAR  PRIVILEGE  —  NO  EXCLUSIVE  RIGHT  —  NO  MONOPOLY 
OF  COMMERCIAL  INTERCOURSE." 

After  having  thus  instructed  Mr.  Squier  as  to  the  basis  of  the  treaty 
which  he  was  to  conclude,  Mr.  Clayton  seems  to  have  been  apprehensive 
that  Mr.  Hise  might  already  have  entered  into  a  convention  by  which  the 
United  States  had  secured  the  exclusive  and  perpetual  privilege,  and  in 
order  to  guard  against  such  a  contingency,  he  adds,  at  the  conclusion  of 
the  same  letter  of  instructions,  the  following: 

"If  a  charter  or  grant  of  the  right  of  way  shall  have  been  incautiously 
or  inconsiderately  made  before  your  arrival  in  that  country,  SEEK  to  have  it 
properly  MODIFIED  TO  ANSWER  THE  ENDS  WE  HAVE  IN  VIEW." 

In  other  words,  if  Mr.  Hise  shall  have  made  a  treaty  by  which  he  may 
have  secured  all  the  desired  privileges  to  the  United  States  exclusively, 
"seek  to  have  it  properly  modified,"  so  as  to  form  a  partnership  with  Eng 
land  and  other  monarchical  powers  of  Europe,  and  thus  lay  the  foundation 
for  an  alliance  between  the  New  and  Old  World,  by  which  the  right  of 
European  powers  to  intermeddle  with  the  affairs  of  American  States  will 
be  established  and  recognized.  With  these  instructions  in  his  pocket, 
Mr.  Squier  arrived  in  Nicaragua,  and  before  he  reached  the  seat  of  gov 
ernment,  learned,  by  a  "publication  in  the  Gazette  of  the  Isthmus,"  that 
Mr.  Hise  was  already  negotiating  a  treaty  in  respect  to  the  contemplated 
canal.  Without  knowing  the  provisions  of  the  treaty,  but  taking  it  for 
granted  that  it  was  in  violation  of  the  principles  of  General  Taylor's  ad 
ministration,  as  set  forth  in  his  instructions,  Mr.  Squier  immediately  de 
spatched  a  notice  to  the  Government  of  Nicaragua,  that  "Mr.  Hise  was 
superseded  on  the  second  of  April  last,  upon  which  date  I  [Mr.  Squier] 
received  my  commission  as  his  successor";  "that  Mr.  Hise  was  not  em 
powered  to  enter  upon  any  negotiations  of  the  character  referred  to"; 
and  concluding  with  the  following  request : 


APPENDIX  173 

"  I  have,  therefore,  to  request  that  NO  ACTION  will  be  taken  by  the  Government 
of  Nicaragua  upon  the  inchoate  treaty  which  may  have  been  negotiated  at 
Guatemala,  but  that  the  SAME  MAY  BE  ALLOWED  TO  PASS  AS  AN  UNOFFICIAL 

ACT." 

On  the  same  day,  Mr.  Squier,  with  commendable  promptness,  sends 
a  letter  to  Mr.  Clayton,  informing  our  Government  of  what  he  had  learned 
in  respect  to  the  probable  conclusion  of  the  Rise  treaty,  and  expressing 
his  apprehension  that  the  information  may  be  true,  and  adds : 

"If  so,  I  shall  be  placed  in  a  situation  of  some  embarrassment,  as  I 
conceive  that  Mr.  Hise  has  no  authority  for  the  step  he  has  taken,  and  is 
certainly  not  informed  of  the  PRESENT  VIEWS  AND  DESIRES  OF  OUR 

GOVERNMENT." 

He  also  adds: 

"Under  these  circumstances,  I  have  addressed  a  note  [B]  to  the  Govern 
ment  of  this  republic  [Nicaragua],  requesting  that  the  treaty  made  at  Gua 
temala  (if  any  such  exists)  may  be  allowed  to  pass  as  an  unofficial  act,  and 
that  new  negotiations  may  be  entered  upon  at  the  seat  of  government." 

Having  communicated  this  important  intelligence  to  his  own  Govern 
ment,  Mr.  Squier  proceeded  on  his  journey  with  a  patriotic  zeal  equal  to 
the  importance  of  his  mission,  and  on  his  arrival  upon  the  theatre  of  his 
labors  opened  negotiations  for  a  new  treaty  in  accordance  with  the  "present 
views  and  desires  of  our  Government,"  as  contained  in  his  instructions. 
The  new  treaty  was  concluded  on  the  third  of  September,  1849,  and  trans 
mitted  to  the  Government,  with  a  letter  explanatory  of  the  negotiation, 
bearing  date  the  tenth  of  the  same  month.  Mr.  Squier's  treaty,  so  far  as 
I  can  judge  from  the  published  correspondence  —  for  the  injunction  of 

secrecy  forbids  a  reference  to  more  authentic  sources  of  information 

is  in  strict  accordance  with  his  instructions,  and  entirely  free  from  any 
odious  provisions  which  might  secure  "peculiar  privileges  or  exclusive 
rights "  to  the  United  States. 

These  two  treaties  —  the  one  negotiated  by  Mr.  Hise  and  the  other  by 
Mr.  Squier  — were  in  the  State  Department  in  this  city  when  Congress 
met  in  December,  1849.  The  administration  of  General  Taylor  was  at 
liberty  to  choose  between  them,  and  submit  the  one  or  the  other  to  the 
Senate  for  ratification.  The  Hise  treaty  was  suppressed,  without  giving 
the  Senate  an  opportunity  of  ratifying  it  or  advising  its  rejection. 

I  was  unwilling  to  enter  into  treaty  stipulations  with  Great  Britain  or 
any  other  European  power  in  respect  to  the  American  continent,  by  the 
terms  of  which  we  should  pledge  the  faith  of  this  republic  not  to  do  in  all 
coming  time  that  which  in  the  progress  of  events  our  interests,  duty,  and 
even  safety  may  compel  us  to  do.  I  have  already  said,  and  now  repeat, 
that  every  article,  clause,  and  provision  of  that  treaty  is  predicated  upon 
a  virtual  negation  and  repudiation  of  the  Monroe  declaration  in  relation  to 
European  colonization  on  this  continent.  The  article  inviting  any  power 
on  earth  with  which  England  and  the  United  States  are  on  terms  of  friendly 
intercourse  to  enter  into  similar  stipulations,  and  which  pledges  the  good 


174  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 

offices  of  each,  when  requested  by  the  other,  to  aid  in  the  new  negotia 
tions  with  the  other  Central  American  States,  and  which  pledges  the  good 
offices  of  all  the  nations  entering  into  the  alliance  to  settle  disputes  between 
the  states  and  governments  of  Central  America,  not  only  recognizes  the 
right  of  European  powers  to  interfere  with  the  affairs  of  the  American 
continent,  but  invites  the  exercise  of  such  right,  and  makes  it  obligatory 
to  do  so  in  certain  cases.  It  establishes,  in  terms,  an  alliance  between  the 
contracting  parties,  and  invites  all  other  nations  to  become  parties  to  it. 
I  was  opposed  also  to  the  clause  which  stipulates  that  neither  Great  Brit 
ain  nor  the  United  States  will  ever  occupy,  colonize,  or  exercise  dominion 
over  any  portion  of  Nicaragua,  Costa  Rica,  the  Mosquito  Coast,  or  any 
part  of  Central  America.  I  did  not  desire  then,  nor  do  I  now,  to  annex 
any  portion  of  that  country  to  this  Union.  I  do  not  know  that  the  time 
will  ever  come  in  my  day  when  I  would  be  willing  to  do  so.  Yet  I  was  un 
willing  to  give  the  pledge  that  neither  we  nor  our  successors  ever  would. 
This  is  an  age  of  rapid  movements  and  great  changes.  How  long  is  it 
since  those  who  made  this  treaty  would  have  told  us  that  the  time  would 
never  come  when  we  would  want  California  or  any  portion  of  the  Pacific 
coast?  California  being  a  State  of  the  Union,  who  is  authorized  to  say 
that  the  time  will  not  arrive  when  our  interests  and  safety  may  require 
us  to  possess  some  portion  of  Central  America,  which  lies  half  way  between 
our  Atlantic  and  Pacific  possessions,  and  embraces  the  great  water  lines 
of  commerce  between  the  two  oceans?  I  think  it  the  wiser  and  safer 
policy  to  hold  the  control  of  our  own  action,  and  leave  those  who  are  to 
come  after  us  untrammelled  and  free  to  do  whatever  they  may  deem  their 
duty,  when  the  time  shall  arrive.  They  will  have  a  better  right  to  deter 
mine  for  themselves  when  the  necessity  for  action  may  arise,  than  we  have 
now  to  prescribe  the  line  of  duty  for  them.  I  was  equally  opposed  to  that 
other  clause  in  the  same  article,  which  stipulates  that  neither  party  will 
ever  fortify  any  portion  of  Central  America,  or  any  place  commanding  the 
entrance  to  the  canal,  or  in  the  vicinity  thereof.  It  is  not  reciprocal,  for 
the  reason  that  it  leaves  the  island  of  Jamaica,  a  British  colony,  strongly 
fortified,  the  nearest  military  and  naval  station  to  the  line  of  the  canal. 
It  is,  therefore,  equivalent  to  a  stipulation  that  the  United  States  shall 
never  have  or  maintain  any  fortification  in  the  vicinity  of,  or  commanding 
the  line  of  navigation  and  commerce  through  said  canal,  while  England 
may  keep  and  maintain  those  she  now  has. 

But  there  was  another  insuperable  objection  to  the  Clayton  and  Bulwer 
treaty  which  increases,  enlarges,  and  extends  the  force  of  all  the  obnoxious 
provisions  I  have  pointed  out.  I  allude  to  the  article  in  which  it  is  pro 
vided  that: 

"The  Government  of  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  having  not 
only  desired  to  accomplish  a  particular  object,  BUT  ALSO  TO  ESTABLIBH  A 

GENERAL  PRINCIPLE,   THEY  HEREBY  AGREE  TO   EXTEND  THEIR  PROTECTION, 
BY   TREATY   STIPULATIONS,    TO   ANY    OTHER   PRACTICABLE   COMMUNICATIONS, 

whether  by  canal  or  railway,  across  the  isthmus  which  connects  North  and 


APPENDIX  175 

South  America,  and  especially  to  the  interoceanic  communications,  should  the 
same  prove  to  be  practicable,  whether  by  canal  or  railway,  which  are  now  pro 
posed  to  be  established  by  the  way  of  TEHUANTEPEC  OR  PANAMA." 

The  "particular  object"  which  the  parties  had  in  view  being  thus  ac 
complished  —  the  Hise  treaty  defeated,  the  exclusive  privilege  to  the 
United  States  surrendered  and  abandoned,  and  the  European  partner 
ship  established  —  yet  they  were  not  satisfied.  They  were  not  content  to 
"accomplish  a  particular  object,"  but  desired  to  "establish  a  general 
principle"  !  That  which,  by  the  terms  of  the  treaty,  was  particular  and 
local  to  the  five  States  of  Central  America,  is,  in  this  article,  extended  to 
Mexico  on  the  north,  and  to  New  Granada  on  the  south,  and  declared  to 
be  a  general  principle  by  which  any  and  all  other  practicable  routes  of 
communication  across  the  isthmus  between  North  and  South  America  are 
to  be  governed  and  protected  by  the  allied  powers.  New  and  additional 
treaty  stipulations  are  to  be  entered  into  for  this  purpose,  and  the  net 
work  which  had  been  prepared  and  spread  over  all  Central  America  is  to 
be  extended  far  enough  into  Mexico  and  New  Granada  to  cover  all  the 
lines  of  communication,  whether  by  railway  or  canal,  and  especially  to 
include  Tehuantepec  and  Panama.  When  it  is  remembered  that  the 
treaty  in  terms  establishes  an  alliance  between  the  United  States  and 
Great  Britain  and  engages  to  invite  all  other  powers,  with  which  either 
is  on  terms  of  friendly  intercourse,  to  become  parties  to  its  provisions,  it 
will  be  seen  that  this  article  seeks  to  make  the  principles  of  the  Clayton 
and  Bulwer  treaty  the  law  of  nations  in  respect  to  American  affairs.  The 
general  principle  is  established;  the  right  of  European  powers  to  inter 
vene  in  the  affairs  of  American  States  is  recognized ;  the  propriety  of  the 
exercise  of  that  right  is  acknowledged ;  and  the  extent  to  which  the  allied 
powers  shall  carry  their  protection,  and  the  limits  within  which  they  shall 
confine  their  operations,  are  subject  to  treaty  stipulations  in  the  future. 

When  the  American  continent  shall  have  passed  under  the  protectorate 
of  the  allied  powers,  and  her  future  made  dependent  upon  treaty  stipula 
tions  for  carrying  into  effect  the  object  of  the  alliance,  Europe  will  no 
longer  have  cause  for  serious  apprehensions  at  the  rapid  growth,  expan 
sion,  arid  development  of  our  federal  Union.  She  will  then  console  herself 
that  limits  have  been  set  and  barriers  erected  beyond  which  the  territories 
of  this  republic  can  never  extend,  nor  its  principles  prevail.  In  confirma 
tion  of  this  view,  she  will  find  additional  cause  for  congratulation  when 
she  looks  into  the  treaty  of  peace  with  Mexico,  and  there  sees  the  sacred 
honor  of  this  republic  irrevocably  pledged  that  we  will  never,  in  all  coming 
time,  annex  any  more  Mexican  territory  in  the  mode  in  which  Texas  was 
acquired.  The  fifth  article  contains  the  following  extraordinary  provision : 

"The  boundary-line  established  by  this  article  shall  be  religiously  re 
spected  by  each  of  the  two  republics,  and  no  change  shall  ever  be  made 
therein  except  by  the  express  and  free  consent  of  both  nations,  lawfully 
given  by  the  general  Government  of  each,  in  conformity  with  its  own 
Constitution." 

One  would  naturally  suppose  that,  for  all  the  ordinary  purposes  of  a 


176     .  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

treaty  of  peace,  the  first  clause  of  the  paragraph  would  have  been  entirely 
sufficient.  It  declares  that  "the  boundary-line  established  by  this  article 
shall  be  religiously  respected  by  each  of  the  two  republics."  Why  depart 
from  the  usual  course  of  proceeding  in  such  cases,  and  add,  that  "no  change 
shall  ever  be  made  therein,  except  by  the  express  and  free  consent  of  both  nations, 
lawfully  given  by  the  general  Government  of  each,  in  conformity  with  its  own 
Constitution."  What  is  the  meaning  of  this  peculiar  phraseology?  The 
history  of  Texas  furnishes  the  key  by  which  the  hidden  meaning  can  be 
unlocked.  The  Sabine  was  once  the  boundary  between  the  republics  of 
the  United  States  and  Mexico.  By  the  revolt  of  Texas  and  the  establish 
ment  of  her  independence,  and  the  acknowledgment  thereof  by  the  great 
powers  of  the  world,  and  her  annexation  to  the  United  States,  the  bound 
ary  between  the  two  republics  was  changed  from  the  Sabine  to  the  Rio 
Grande  without  "the  express  and  free  consent  of  both  nations,  lawfully 
given  by  the  general  Government  of  each,  in  conformity  with  its  own  Con 
stitution."  Mexico  regarded  that  change  a  just  cause  of  war,  and  accord 
ingly  invaded  Texas  with  a  view  to  the  recovery  of  the  lost  territory.  A 
protracted  war  ensued,  in  which  thousands  of  lives  were  lost,  and  millions 
of  money  expended,  when  peace  is  concluded  upon  the  express  condition 
that  the  treaty  should  contain  an  open  and  frank  avowal  that  the  United 
States  has  been  wrong  in  the  causes  of  the  war,  by  the  pledge  of  her  honor 
never  to  repeat  the  act  which  led  to  hostilities. 

Wherever  you  turn  your  eye,  whether  to  your  own  record,  to  the  statute- 
books,  to  the  history  of  this  country  or  of  Mexico,  or  to  the  diplomatic 
history  of  the  world,  this  humiliating  and  degrading  acknowledgment 
stares  you  in  the  face,  as  a  monument  of  your  own  creation,  to  the  dis 
honor  of  our  common  country.  Well  do  I  remember  the  determined  and 
protracted  efforts  of  the  minority  to  expunge  this  odious  clause  from  the 
treaty  before  its  ratification,  and  how,  on  the  fourth  of  March,  1848, 
we  were  voted  down  by  forty-two  to  eleven.  The  stain  which  that  clause 
fastened  upon  the  history  of  our  country  was  not  the  only  objection  I 
urged  to  its  retention  in  the  treaty.  It  violated  a  great  principle  of  public 
policy  in  relation  to  this  continent.  It  pledges  the  faith  of  this  republic 
that  our  successors  shall  not  do  that  which  duty  to  the  interests  and 
honor  of  the  country,  in  the  progress  of  events,  may  compel  them  to  do. 
I  do  not  meditate  or  look  with  favor  upon  any  aggression  upon  Mexico. 
I  do  not  desire,  at  this  time,  to  annex  any  portion  of  her  territory  to  this 
Union ;  nor  am  I  prepared  to  say  that  the  time  will  ever  come,  in  my  day, 
when  I  would  be  willing  to  sanction  such  a  proposition.  But  who  can  say 
that,  amid  the  general  wreck  and  demoralization  in  Mexico,  a  state  of 
things  may  not  arise  in  which  a  just  regard  for  our  own  rights  and  safety, 
and  for  the  sake  of  humanity  and  civilization,  may  render  it  imperative 
for  us  to  do  that  which  was  done  in  the  case  of  Texas,  and  thereby  change 
the  boundary  between  the  two  republics,  without  the  free  consent  of 
the  general  Government  of  Mexico,  lawfully  given  in  conformity  with  her 
Constitution?  Recent  events  in  Sonora,  Chihuahua,  and  Tamaulipas  do 
not  establish  the  wisdom  and  propriety  of  that  line  of  policy  which  ties 


APPENDIX  177 

our  hands  in  advance,  and  deprives  the  Government  of  the  right,  in  the 
future,  of  doing  whatever  duty  and  honor  may  require,  when  the  necessity 
for  action  may  arrive. 

Mr.  President,  one  of  the  resolutions  under  consideration  makes  a 
declaration  in  relation  to  the  island  of  Cuba,  which  requires  a  passing 
notice.  It  is  in  the  following  words  : 

"That,  while  the  United  States  disclaim  any  designs  upon  the  island  of 
Cuba,  inconsistent  with  the  laws  of  nations  and  with  their  duties  to  Spain, 
they  consider  it  due  to  the  vast  importance  of  the  subject  to  make  known, 
in  this  solemn  manner,  that  they  should  view  all  efforts  on  the  part  of  any 
other  power  to  procure  possession,  whether  peaceably  or  forcibly,  of  that 
island,  which,  as  a  naval  or  military  position,  must,  under  circumstances 
easy  to  be  foreseen,  become  dangerous  to  their  southern  coast,  to  the  Gulf 
of  Mexico,  and  to  the  mouth  of  the  Mississippi,  as  unfriendly  acts,  directed 
against  them,  to  be  resisted  by  all  the  means  in  their  power." 

I  confess  I  have  not  formed  a  very  high  appreciation  of  the  value  of 
these  disclaimers  of  all  intention  of  committing  crimes  against  our  neigh 
bors.  I  do  not  think  I  should  deem  my  house  any  more  secure  in  the  night 
in  consequence  of  the  thief  having  pledged  his  honor  not  to  steal  my 
property.  If  I  am  surrounded  by  honest  men,  there  is  no  necessity  for  the 
"friendly  assurance";  and  if  by  rogues,  it  would  not  relieve  my  appre 
hensions  or  afford  much  security  to  my  rights.  I  am  unwilling,  therefore, 
to  make  any  disclaimer  as  to  our  purposes  upon  Cuba,  or  to  give  any  pledge 
in  respect  to  existing  rights  upon  this  continent.  The  nations  of  Europe 
have  no  right  to  call  upon  us  for  a  disclaimer  of  the  one,  or  for  a  pledge  to 
protect  the  other. 


CUBA 

Now,  sir,  a  few  words  with  regard  to  the  island  of  Cuba.  If  any  man 
desires  my  opinions  upon  that  question,  he  can  learn  them  very  easily. 
They  have  been  proclaimed  frequently  for  the  last  nine  years,  and  still 
remain  unchanged.  I  have  often  said,  and  now  repeat,  that,  so  long  as 
the  island  of  Cuba  is  content  to  remain  loyal  to  the  crown  of  Spain,  be  it 
so.  I  have  no  desire,  no  wish,  to  disturb  that  relation.  I  have  always  said, 
and  now  repeat,  that,  whenever  the  people  of  the  island  of  Cuba  shall  show 
themselves  worthy  of  freedom  by  asserting  and  maintaining  their  inde 
pendence  and  establishing  republican  institutions,  my  heart,  my  sympa 
thies,  my  prayers,  are  with  them  for  the  accomplishment  of  the  object.  I 
have  often  said,  and  now  repeat,  that,  when  that  independence  shall  have 
been  established,  if  it  shall  be  necessary  to  their  interest  or  safety  to  apply 
as  Texas  did  for  annexation,  I  shall  be  ready  to  do  by  them  as  we  did  by 
Texas,  and  receive  them  into  the  Union.  I  have  said,  and  now  repeat,  that, 
whenever  Spain  shall  come  to  the  conclusion  that  she  cannot  much  longer 
maintain  her  dominion  over  the  island,  and  that  it  is  better  for  her  to 

12 


178  STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS 

transfer  it  to  us  upon  fair  and  reasonable  terms,  I  am  one  of  those  who 
would  be  ready  to  accept  the  transfer.  I  have  said,  and  now  repeat,  that, 
whenever  Spain  shall  refuse  to  make  such  transfer  to  us,  and  shall  make 
it  to  England  or  any  other  European  power,  I  would  be  among  those  who 
would  be  in  favor  of  taking  possession  of  the  island,  and  resisting  such 
transfer  at  all  hazards. 

Thus  far  I  have  often  gone;  thus  far  I  now  go.  These  are  my  indi 
vidual  opinions;  not  of  much  consequence,  I  admit,  but  any  one  who 
desires  to  know  them  is  welcome  to  them.  But  it  is  one  thing  for  me  to 
entertain  these  individual  sentiments,  and  it  is  another  and  very  different 
thing  to  pledge  forever  and  unalterably  the  policy  of  this  Government  in 
a  particular  channel,  in  defiance  of  any  change  in  the  circumstances  that 
may  hereafter  take  place.  I  do  not  deem  it  necessary  to  affirm  by  a  resolu 
tion,  in  the  name  of  the  republic,  every  opinion  that  I  may  entertain  and 
be  willing  to  act  upon  as  the  representative  of  a  local  constituency.  I  am 
not,  therefore,  prepared  to  say  that  it  is  wise  policy  to  make  any  declara 
tion  upon  the  subject  of  the  island  of  Cuba.  Circumstances  not  within 
our  control,  and  originating  in  causes  beyond  our  reach,  may  precipitate 
a  state  of  things  that  would  change  our  action  and  reverse  our  whole  line 
of  policy.  Cuba,  in  the  existing  position  of  affairs,  does  not  present  a 
practical  issue.  All  that  we  may  say  or  do  is  merely  speculative,  and  de 
pendent  upon  contingencies  that  may  never  happen. 


SPEECH    IN    THE    SENATE    ON    TERRITORIAL    EXPANSION 
AND   FOREIGN  AGGRESSION 

(Delivered  March  10,  1853) 

I  HAVE  a  word  or  two  to  say  in  reply  to  the  remarks  of  the  senator  from 
Delaware  upon  so  much  of  my  speech  as  related  to  the  pledge  in  the  Clayton 
and  Bulwer  treaty  never  to  annex  any  portion  of  that  country.  I  objected 
to  that  clause  in  the  treaty  upon  the  ground  that  I  was  unwilling  to  enter 
into  a  treaty  stipulation  with  any  European  power  in  respect  to  this  con 
tinent,  that  we  would  not  do,  in  the  future,  whatever  our  duty,  interest, 
lu  or,  and  safety  might  require  in  the  course  of  events.  The  senator 
infers  that  I  desire  to  annex  Central  America  because  I  was  unwilling  to 
give  a  pledge  that  we  never  would  do  it.  He  reminded  me  that  there 
was  a  clause  in  the  treaty  with  Mexico  containing  the  stipulation  that,  in 
certain  contingencies,  we  wrould  never  annex  any  portion  of  that  country. 
Sir,  it  was  unnecessary  that  he  should  remind  me  of  that  provision.  He 
has  not  forgotten  how  hard  I  struggled  to  get  that  clause  out  of  the  treaty, 
where  it  was  retained  in  opposition  to  my  vote.  Had  the  senator  given  me 
his  aid  then  to  defeat  that  provision  in  the  Mexican  treaty,  I  would  be 
better  satisfied  now  with  his  excuse  for  having  inserted  a  still  stronger 
pledge  in  his  treaty.  But,  having  advocated  that  pledge  then,  he  should 
not  attempt  to  avoid  the  responsibility  of  his  own  act  by  citing  it  as  a 
precedent.  I  was  unwilling  to  bind  ourselves  by  treaty  for  all  time  to 
come  never  to  annex  any  more  territory.  I  am  content  for  the  present 
with  the  territory  we  have.  I  do  not  wish  to  annex  any  portion  of  Mexico 
now.  I  did  not  wish  to  annex  any  part  of  Central  America  then,  nor  do 
I  at  this  time. 

But  I  cannot  close  my  eyes  to  the  history  of  this  country  for  the  last 
half  century.  Fifty  years  ago  the  question  was  being  debated  in  this 
Senate  whether  it  was  wise  or  not  to  acquire  any  territory  on  the  west 
bank  of  the  Mississippi,  and  it  was  then  contended  that  we  could  never 
with  safety  extend  beyond  that  river.  It  was  at  that  time  seriously  con 
sidered  whether  the  Alleghany  Mountains  should  not  be  the  barrier  beyond 
which  we  should  never  pass.  At  a  subsequent  date,  after  we  had  acquired 
Louisiana  and  Florida,  more  liberal  views  began  to  prevail,  and  it  was 
thought  that  perhaps  we  might  venture  to  establish  one  tier  of  States 
west  of  the  Mississippi;  but,  in  order  to  prevent  the  sad  calamity  of  an 
undue  expansion  of  our  territory,  the  policy  was  adopted  of  establishing 
an  Indian  Territory,  with  titles  in  perpetuity,  all  along  the  western  borders 
of  those  States,  so  that  no  more  new  States  could  possibly  be  created  in 


180  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

that  direction.  That  barrier  could  not  arrest  the  onward  progress  of  our 
people.  They  burst  through  it,  and  passed  the  Rocky  Mountains,  and 
were  only  arrested  by  the  waters  of  the  Pacific.  Who,  then,  is  prepared 
to  say  that  in  the  progress  of  events,  having  met  with  the  barrier  of  the 
ocean  in  our  western  course,  we  may  not  be  compelled  to  turn  to  the 
north  and  to  the  south  for  an  outlet?  .  .  . 

You  may  make  as  many  treaties  as  you  please  to  fetter  the  limbs  of  this 
giant  republic,  and  she  will  burst  them  all  from  her,  and  her  course  will 
be  onward  to  a  limit  which  I  will  not  venture  to  prescribe.  Why  the 
necessity  of  pledging  your  faith  that  you  will  never  annex  any  more  of 
Mexico?  Do  you  not  know  that  you  will  be  compelled  to  do  it;  that  you 
cannot  help  it;  that  your  treaty  will  not  prevent  it,  and  that  the  only 
effect  it  will  have  will  be  to  enable  European  powers  to  accuse  us  of  bad 
faith  when  the  act  is  done,  and  associate  American  faith  and  Punic  faith 
as  synonymous  terms?  What  is  the  use  of  your  guarantee  that  you  will 
never  erect  any  fortifications  in  Central  America;  never  annex,  occupy, 
or  colonize  any  portion  of  that  country?  How  do  you  know  that  you 
can  avoid  doing  it?  If  you  make  the  canal,  I  ask  you  if  American  citizens 
will  not  settle  along  its  line ;  whether  they  will  not  build  up  towns  at  each 
terminus;  whether  they  will  not  spread  over  that  country,  and  convert 
it  into  an  American  State;  whether  American  principles  and  American 
institutions  will  not  be  firmly  planted  there?  And  I  ask  you  how  many 
years  you  think  will  pass  away  before  you  will  find  the  same  necessity  to 
extend  your  laws  over  your  own  kindred  that  you  found  in  the  case  of 
Texas?  How  long  will  it  be  before  that  day  arrives?  It  may  not  occur 
in  the  senator's  day,  nor  mine.  But,  so  certain  as  this  republic  exists,  so 
certain  as  we  remain  a  united  people,  so  certain  as  the  laws  of  progress 
which  have  raised  us  from  a  mere  handful  to  a  mighty  nation  shall 
continue  to  govern  our  action,  just  so  certain  are  these  events  to  be 
worked  out,  and  you  will  be  compelled  to  extend  your  protection  in  that 
direction. 

Sir,  I  am  not  desirous  of  hastening  the  day.  I  am  not  impatient  of  the 
time  when  it  shall  be  realized.  I  do  not  wish  to  give  any  additional  im 
pulse  to  our  progress.  We  are  going  fast  enough.  But  I  wish  our  policy, 
our  laws,  our  institutions,  should  keep  up  with  the  advance  in  science,  in 
the  mechanic  arts,  in  agriculture,  and  in  every  thing  that  tends  to  make 
us  a  great  and  powerful  nation.  Let  us  look  the  future  in-the  face,  and 
let  us  prepare  to  meet  that  which  cannot  be  avoided.  Hence  I  was  un 
willing  to  adopt  that  clause  in  the  treaty  guaranteeing  that  neither  party 
would  ever  annex,  colonize,  or  occupy  any  portion  of  Central  America. 
I  was  opposed  to  it  for  another  reason.  It  was  not  reciprocal.  Great 
Britain  had  possession  of  the  island  of  Jamaica.  Jamaica  was  the  nearest 
armed  and  fortified  point  to  the  terminus  of  the  canal.  Jamaica  at  present 
commands  the  entrance  of  the  canal;  and  all  that  Great  Britain  desired 
was,  inasmuch  as  she  had  possession  of  the  only  place  commanding  the 
canal,  to  procure  a  stipulation  that  no  other  power  would  ever  erect  a  fortifi 
cation  nearer  its  terminus.  That  stipulation  is  equivalent  to  an  agreement 


APPENDIX  l8l 

that  England  may  fortify,  but  that  we  never  shall.  Sir,  when  you  look  at 
the  whole  history  of  that  question,  you  will  see  that  England,  with  her 
far-seeing,  sagacious  policy,  has  attempted  to  circumscribe,  and  restrict, 
and  restrain  the  free  action  of  this  Government.  When  was  it  that  Great 
Britain  seized  the  possession  of  the  terminus  of  this  canal?  Just  six  days 
after  the  signing  of  the  treaty  which  secured  to  us  California  !  The  moment 
Englanc^  saw  that,  by  the  pending  negotiations  with  Mexico,  California 
was  to  be  acquired,  she  collected  her  fleets  and  made  preparations  for  the 
seizure  of  the  port  of  San  Juan,  in  order  that  she  might  be  gate-keeper  on 
the  public  highway  to  our  new  possessions  on  the  Pacific.  Within  six 
days  from  the  time  we  signed  the  treaty,  England  seized  by  force  and  vio 
lence  the  very  point  now  in  controversy.  Is  not  this  fact  indicative  of 
her  motives?  Is  it  not  clear  that  her  object  was  to  obstruct  our  passage 
to  our  new  possessions?  Hence  I  do  not  sympathize  with  that  feeling 
which  the  senator  expressed  yesterday,  that  it  was  a  pity  to  have  a  differ 
ence  with  a  nation  so  FRIENDLY  TO  us  AS  ENGLAND.  Sir,  I  do  not  see  the 
evidence  of  her  friendship.  It  is  not  in  the  nature  of  things  that  she  can 
be  our  friend.  It  is  impossible  she  can  love  us.  I  do  not  blame  her  for  not 
loving  us.  Sir,  we  have  wounded  her  vanity  and  humbled  her  pride.  She 
can  never  forgive  us.  But  for  us,  she  would  be  the  first  power  on  the  face 
of  the  earth.  But  for  us,  she  would  have  the  prospect  of  maintaining  that 
proud  position  which  she  held  for  so  long  a  period.  We  are  in  her  way. 
She  is  jealous  of  us,  and  jealousy  forbids  the  idea  of  friendship.  England 
does  not  love  us ;  she  cannot  love  us ;  and  we  do  not  love  her  either.  We 
have  some  things  in  the  past  to  remember  that  are  not  agreeable.  She 
has  more  in  the  present  to  humiliate  her  that  she  cannot  forgive. 

I  do  not  wish  to  administer  to  the  feeling  of  jealousy  and  rivalry  that 
exists  between  us  and  England.  I  wish  to  soften  and  allay  it  as  much  as 
possible ;  but  why  close  our  eyes  to  the  fact  that  friendship  is  impossible 
while  jealousy  exists?  Hence  England  seizes  every  island  in  the  sea  and 
rock  upon  our  coast  where  she  can  plant  a  gun  to  intimidate  us  or  to  annoy 
our  commerce.  Her  policy  has  been  to  seize  every  military  and  naval 
station  the  world  over.  Why  does  she  pay  such  enormous  sums  to  keep 
her  post  at  Gibraltar,  except  to  hold  it  in  terrorem  over  the  commerce  of 
the  Mediterranean?  Why  her  enormous  expense  to  maintain  a  garrison 
at  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope,  except  to  command  the  great  passage  on  the 
way  to  the  Indies?  Why  is  she  at  the  expense  to  keep  her  position  on  the 
little  barren  islands  Bermuda  and  the  miserable  Bahamas,  and  all  the  other 
islands  along  our  coast,  except  as  sentinels  upon  our  actions?  Does  Eng 
land  hold  Bermuda  because  of  any  profit  it  is  to  her?  Has  she  any  other 
motive  for  retaining  it  except  jealousy  which  stimulates  hostility  to  us? 
Is  it  not  the  case  with  all  her  possessions  along  our  coast?  Why,  then, 
talk  about  the  friendly  bearing  of  England  toward  us  when  she  is  extend 
ing  that  policy  every  day?  New  treaties  of  friendship,  seizure  of  islands, 
and  erection  of  new  colonies  in  violation  of  her  treaties  seem  to  be  the 
order  of  the  day.  In  view  of  this  state  of  things,  I  am  in  favor  of  meeting 
England  as  we  meet  a  rival;  meet  her  boldly,  treat  her  justly  and  fairly, 


182  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

but  make  no  humiliating  concession  even  for  the  sake  of  peace.  She  has 
as  much  reason  to  make  concessions  to  us  as  we  have  to  make  them  to 
her.  I  would  not  willingly  disturb  the  peace  of  the  world,  but,  sir,  the  Bay 
Island  colony  must  be  discontinued.  It  violates  the  treaty. 

[At  a  subsequent  part  of  the  debate  he  quoted  the  letter  of  Mr.  Everett 
(Secretary  of  State  under  Mr.  Fillmore),  declining,  on  the  part  of  the  United 
States  Government,  the  agreement  proposed  by  England  and  France,  that 
neither  nation  should  ever  annex  or  take  possession  of  Cuba.  Mr.  Everett, 
in  declining  that  proposition,  said : 

"But,  whatever  may  be  thought  of  these  last  suggestions,  it  would  seem 
impossible  for  anyone  who  reflects  upon  the  events  glanced  at  in  this  note 
to  mistake  the  law  of  American  growth  and  progress,  or  think  it  can  be 
ultimately  arrested  by  a  convention  like  that  proposed.  In  the  judgment 
of  the  President,  it  would  be  as  easy  to  throw  a  dam  from  Cape  Florida  to 
Cuba,  in  the  hope  of  stopping  the  flow  of  the  Gulf  Stream,  as  to  attempt, 
by  a  compact  like  this,  to  fix  the  fortunes  of  Cuba,  now  and  for  hereafter, 
or,  as  is  expressed  in  the  French  text  of  the  convention,  'pour  le  present 
comme  pour  I'avenir  '  —  that  is,  for  all  coming  time." 

Mr.  Douglas,  in  commenting  upon  this,  said :] 

There  the  senator  is  told  that  such  a  stipulation  (to  annex  no  more 
territory)  might  be  applicable  to  European  politics,  but  would  be  unsuited 
and  unfitted  to  American  affairs ;  that  he  has  mistaken  entirely  the  system 
of  policy  which  should  be  applied  to  our  own  country;  that  he  has  predi 
cated  his  action  upon  those  old  antiquated  notions  which  belong  to  the 
stationary  and  retrograde  movements  of  the  Old  World,  and  find  no  sym 
pathy  in  the  youthful,  uprising  aspirations  of  the  American  heart.  I  en 
dorse  fully  the  sentiment.  I  insist  that  there  is  a  difference,  a  wide  differ 
ence,  between  the  system  of  policy  which  should  be  pursued  in  America 
and  that  which  would  be  applicable  to  Europe.  Europe  is  antiquated, 
decrepit,  tottering  on  the  verge  of  dissolution.  When  you  visit  her,  the 
objects  which  enlist  your  highest  admiration  are  the  relics  of  past  great 
ness  ;  the  broken  columns  erected  to  departed  power.  It  is  one  vast  grave 
yard,  where  you  find  here  a  tomb  indicating  the  burial  of  the  arts;  there 
a  monument  marking  the  spot  where  liberty  expired;  another  to  the 
memory  of  a  great  man  whose  place  has  never  been  filled.  The  choicest 
products  of  her  classic  soil  consist  in  relics,  which  remain  as  sad  memorials 
of  departed  glory  and  fallen  greatness !  They  bring  up  the  memories  of 
the  dead,  but  inspire  no  hope  for  the  living !  Here  every  thing  is  fresh, 
blooming,  expanding,  and  advancing.  We  wish  a  wise,  practical  policy 
adapted  to  our  condition  and  position.  Sir,  the  statesman  who  would 
shape  the  policy  of  America  by  European  models,  has  failed  to  perceive 
the  antagonism  which  exists  in  the  relative  position,  history,  institutions  — 
in  every  thing  pertaining  to  the  Old  and  the  New  World. 

THE     FRIENDSHIP     OF     ENGLAND 

I  cannot  go  as  far  as  the  senator  from  South  Carolina.  I  cannot  recog 
nize  England  as  our  mother.  If  so,  she  is  and  ever  has  been  a  cruel  and 


APPENDIX  183 

unnatural  mother.  I  do  not  find  the  evidence  of  her  affection  in  her 
watchfulness  over  our  infancy,  nor  in  her  joy  and  pride  at  our  ever- 
blooming  prosperity  and  swelling  power  since  we  assumed  an  independent 
position. 

The  proposition  is  not  historically  true.    Our  ancestry  were  not  all  of 
English  origin.    They  were  of  Scotch,  Irish,  German,  French,  and  of  Nor 
man  descent  as  well  as  English.     In  short,  we  inherit  from  every  branch 
of  the  Caucasian  race.    It  has  been  our  aim  and  policy  to  profit  by  their 
example  — to   reject   their  errors  and   follies  —  and   to   retain,   imitate, 
cultivate,  perpetuate,  all  that  was  valuable  and  desirable.    So  far  as  any 
portion  of  the  credit  may  be  due  to  England  and  Englishmen  —  and  much 
of  it  is  —  let  it  be  freely  awarded  and  recorded  in  her  ancient  archives, 
which  seem  to  have  been  long  since  forgotten  by  her,  and  the  memory  of 
which  her  present  policy  toward  us  is  not  well  calculated  to  revive.    But, 
that  the  senator  from  South  Carolina,  in  view  of  our  present  position  and 
of  his  location  in  this  confederacy,  should  indulge  in  glowing  and  eloquent 
eulogiums  of  England  for  the  blessings  and  benefits  she  has  conferred  and 
is  still  lavishing  upon  us,  and  urge  these  considerations  in  palliation  of 
the  wrongs  she  is  daily  perpetrating,  is  to  me  amazing.    He  speaks  in  terms 
of  delight  and  gratitude  of  the  copious  and  refreshing  streams  which  Eng 
lish  literature  and  science  are  pouring  into  our  country  and  diffusing 
throughout  the  land.     Is  he  not  aware  that  nearly  every  English  book 
circulated  and  read  in  this  country  contains  lurking  and  insidious  slanders 
and  libels  upon  the  character  of  our  people  and  the  institutions  and  policy 
of  our  Government?    Does  he  not  know  that  abolitionism,  which  has  so 
seriously  threatened  the  peace  and  safety  of  this  republic,  had  its  origin 
in  England,  and  has  been  incorporated  into  the  policy  of  that  Government 
for  the  purpose  of  operating  upon  the  peculiar  institutions  of  some  of  the 
States  of  this  confederacy,  and  thus  render  the  Union  itself  insecure? 
Does  she  not  keep  her  missionaries  perambulating  this  country,  deliver 
ing  lectures,  and  scattering  broadcast  incendiary  publications,  designed  to 
incite  prejudices,  hate,  and  strife  between  the  different  sections  of  this 
Union?    I  had  supposed  that  South  Carolina  and  the  other  slaveholding 
States  of  this  confederacy  had  been  sufficiently  refreshed  and  enlightened 
by  a  certain  species  of  English  literature,  designed  to  stir  up  treason  and 
insurrection  around  his  own  fireside,  to  have  excused  the  senator  from 
offering  up  praises  and  hosannas  to  our  English  mother !    Is  not  the  heart, 
intellect,  and  press  of  England  this  moment  employed  in  flooding  America 
with  this  species  of  English  literature?    Even  the  wives  and  daughters  of 
the  nobility  and  the  high  officers  of  government  have  had  the  presumption 
to  address  the  women  of  America,  and  in  the  name  of  philanthropy  ap 
peal  to  them  to  engage  in  the  treasonable  plot  against  the  institutions  and 
government  of  their  own  choice  in  their  native  land,  while  millions  are 
being  expended  to  distribute  "  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin  »  throughout  the  world, 
.with  the  view  of  combining  the  fanaticism,  ignorance,  and  hatred  of  all 
the  nations  of  the  earth  in  a  common  crusade  against  the  peculiar  institu 
tions  of  the  State  and  section  of  this  Union  represented  by  the  senator 


184  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 

from  South  Carolina;  and  he  unwittingly  encourages  it  by  giving  vent  to 
his  rapturous  joy  over  these  copious  and  ref resiling  streams  with  which 
England  is  irrigating  the  American  intellect. 

REPELLING    FOREIGN    AGGRESSIONS 

I  agree,  Mr.  President,  with  most  that  has  been  said  by  my  friend  from 
Georgia  [Mr.  Toombs],  and  especially  that  we  ought  to  determine  what 
we  are  to  do  in  reference  to  the  outrages  upon  our  flag  in  the  Gulf  of  Mexico 
and  the  West  Indies,  before  we  decide  the  amount  of  money  we  shall  vote 
for  war  purposes.  If  we  are  going  to  content  ourselves  with  simple  resolu 
tions  that  we  will  not  submit  to  that  which  we  have  resolved  for  half  a 
century  should  never  be  repeated,  I  see  no  use  in  additional  appropriations 
for  navy  or  for  army.  If  we  are  going  to  be  contented  with  loud-sounding 
speeches,  with  defiances  to  the  British  lion,  with  resolutions  of  the  Senate 
alone,  not  concurred  in  by  the  other  House,  conferring  no  power  on  the 
executive,  —  merely  capital  for  the  country,  giving  no  power  to  the  execu 
tive  to  avenge  insults  or  prevent  their  repetition, —  what  is  the  use  of  voting 
money?  I  find  that  patriotic  gentlemen  are  ready  to  talk  loud,  resolve 
strong;  but  are  they  willing  to  appropriate  the  money?  Are  they  willing 
to  confer  on  the  executive  power  to  repel  these  insults,  and  to  avenge  them 
whenever  they  may  be  perpetrated  ?  Let  us  know  whether  we  are  to  sub 
mit  and  protest,  or  whether  we  are  to  authorize  the  President  to  resist 
and  to  prevent  the  repetition  of  these  offences.  If  senators  are  prepared 
to  vote  for  a  law  reviving  the  act  of  1839,  putting  the  army,  the  navy, 
volunteers,  and  money  at  the  disposal  of  the  President  to  prevent  the 
repetition  of  these  acts,  and  to  punish  them  if  repeated,  then  I  am  ready 
to  give  the  ships  and  the  money;  but  I  desire  to  know  whether  we  are  to 
submit  to  these  insults  with  a  simple  protest,  or  whether  we  are  to  repel 
them. 

Gentlemen  ask  us  to  vote  ships  and  money,  and  they  talk  to  us  about 
the  necessity  of  a  ship  in  China,  and  about  outrages  in  Tampico,  and  dis 
turbances  in  South  America,  and  Indian  difficulties  in  Puget's  Sound. 
Every  enemy  that  can  be  found  on  the  face  of  the  earth  is  defied  except 
the  one  that  defies  us.  Bring  in  a  proposition  here  to  invest  the  President 
with  power  to  repel  British  aggressions  on  American  ships,  and  what  is 
the  response?  High-sounding  resolutions,  declaring  in  effect,  if  not  in 
terms,  that  whereas  Great  Britain  has  perpetrated  outrages  on  our  flag 
and  our  shipping  which  are  intolerable  and  insufferable,  and  must  not  be 
repeated,  therefore,  if  she  does  so  again,  we  will  whip  Mexico,  or  we  will 
pounce  down  upon  Nicaragua,  or  we  will  get  up  a  fight  with  Costa  Rica, 
or  we  will  chastise  New  Granada,  or  we  will  punish  the  Chinese,  or  we  will 
repel  the  Indians  from  Puget's  Sound,  but  not  a  word  about  Great  Britain. 
What  I  desire  to  know  is  whether  we  are  to  meet  this  issue  with  Great 
Britain?  I  am  told  we  shall  do  it  when  we  are  prepared.  Sir,  when  will 
you  be  prepared  to  repel  an  insult  unless  when  it  is  given? 

Sir,  I  tremble  for  the  fame  of  America,  for  her  honor,  and  for  her 


HENRY   CLAY 

Statesman  and  Abolitionist 


APPENDIX  185 

character,  when  we  shall  be  silent  in  regard  to  British  outrages,  and 
avenge  ourselves  by  punishing  the  weaker  powers  instead  of  grappling 
with  the  stronger.  I  never  did  fancy  that  policy  nor  admire  that  chivalry 
which  induced  a  man,  when  insulted  by  a  strong  man  of  his  own  size,  to  say 
that  he  would  whip  the  first  boy  he  found  in  the  street  in  order  to  vindicate 
his  honor,  or,  as  is  suggested  by  a  gentleman  behind  me,  that  he  would 
go  home  and  whip  his  wife  in  order  to  show  his  courage,  inasmuch  as  he  was 
afraid  to  tackle  the  full-grown  man  who  had  committed  the  aggression. 
Sir,  these  outrages  cannot  be  concealed;  they  cannot  have  the  go-by; 
we  must  meet  them  face  to  face.  Now  is  the  time  when  England  must  give 
up  her  claim  to  search  American  vessels,  or  we  must  be  silent  in  our  pro 
tests,  and  resolutions,  and  valorous  speeches  against  that  claim.  It  will 
not  do  to  raise  a  navy  for  the  Chinese  seas,  nor  for  Puget's  Sound,  nor  for 
Mexico,  nor  for  the  South  American  republics.  It  may  be  used  for  those 
purposes,  but  England  must  first  be  dealt  with.  Sir,  we  shall  be  looked 
upon  as  showing  the  white  feather  if  we  strike  a  blow  at  any  feeble  power 
until  these  English  aggressions  and  insults  are  first  punished,  and  security 
is  obtained  that  they  are  not  to  be  repeated. 

Besides,  sir,  as  has  been  intimated  by  the  senator  from  Massachusetts, 
England  has  given  pledges  for  her  good  behavior  on  this  continent.  She 
is  bound  over  to  keep  the  peace.  She  has  large  possessions  upon  this  con 
tinent  of  which  she  could  be  deprived  in  ninety  days  after  war  existed; 
and  she  knows  that,  the  moment  she  engages  in  war  with  us,  that  moment 
her  power  upon  the  American  continent  and  upon  the  adjacent  islands 
ceases  to  exist.  While  I  am  opposed  to  war  —  while  I  have  no  idea  of  any 
breach  of  the  peace  with  England,  yet  I  confess  to  you,  sir,  if  war  should 
come  by  her  act  and  not  ours  —  by  her  invasion  of  our  right  and  our  vin 
dication  of  the  same,  I  would  administer  to  every  citizen  and  every  child 
Hannibal's  oath  of  eternal  hostility  as  long  as  the  English  flag  waved  or 
their  Government  claimed  a  foot  of  land  upon  the  American  continent  or 
the  adjacent  islands.  Sir,  I  would  make  it  a  war  that  would  settle  our 
disputes  forever,  not  only  of  the  right  of  search  upon  the  seas,  but  the  right 
to  tread  with  a  hostile  foot  upon  the  soil  of  the  American  continent  or  its 
appendages.  England  sees  that  these  consequences  would  result.  Her 
statesmen  understand  these  results  as  well  as  we,  and  much  better.  Her 
statesmen  have  more  respect  for  us  in  this  particular  than  we  have  for 
ourselves.  They  will  never  push  this  question  to  the  point  of  war.  They 
will  look  you  in  the  eye,  march  to  you  steadily,  as  long  as  they  find  it  is 
prudent.  If  you  cast  the  eye  down  she  will  rush  upon  you.  If  you  look 
her  in  the  eye  steadily,  she  will  shake  hands  with  you  as  friends,  and  have 
respect  for  you.  .  .  .  We  do  not  wish  to  bully  England.  She  is  resisting 
no  claim  of  ours.  She  sets  up  the  claim  to  search  our  vessels,  stop  them 
on  the  high  seas,  invade  our  rights,  and  we  say  to  her  that  we  will  not  sub 
mit  to  that  aggression.  I  would  ask  to  have  the  United  States  act  upon 
the  defensive  in  all  things  —  make  no  threat,  indulge  in  no  bullying, 
but  simply  assert  our  right;  then  maintain  the  assertion  with  whatever 


186  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

power  may  be  necessary,  and  the  God  of  our  fathers  may  have  imparted 
to  us  for  maintaining  it ;  that  is  all.  I  believe  that  is  the  true  course  to 
peace.  I  repeat  that,  if  war  with  England  comes,  it  will  result  from  our 
vacillation,  our  division,  our  hesitation,  our  apprehensions  lest  we  might 
be  whipped  in  the  fight.  Perhaps  we  might.  I  do  not  believe  it.  I  believe 
the  moment  England  declares  war  against  the  United  States,  the  prestige 
of  her  power  is  gone.  It  will  unite  our  own  people;  it  will  give  us  the  sym 
pathy  of  the  world;  it  will  destroy  her  commerce  and  her  manufactures, 
while  it  will  extend  our  own.  It  will  sink  her  to  a  second-rate  power  upon 
the  face  of  the  globe,  and  leave  us  without  a  rival  who  can  dispute  our 
supremacy.  We  shall,  however,  come  to  that  point  early  through  the  paths 
of  peace.  Such  is  the  tendency  of  things  now.  I  would  rather  approach 
it  by  peaceable,  quiet  means,  by  the  arts  and  sciences,  by  agriculture,  by 
commerce,  by  immigration,  by  natural  growth  and  expansion,  than  by 
warfare.  But  if  England  is  impatient  of  our  rising  power,  if  she  desires 
to  hasten  it,  and  should  force  war  upon  us,  she  will  seal  her  doom  now; 
whereas  Providence  might  extend  to  her,  if  not  a  pardon,  at  least  a  reprieve 
for  a  few  short  years  to  come. 


SPEECH  IN  THE  SENATE  ON  THE  KANSAS- 
NEBRASKA  BILL 

(Delivered  March  3,  1854) 

IT  has  been  urged  in  debate  that  there  is  no  necessity  for  these  Terri 
torial  organizations ;  and  I  have  been  called  upon  to  point  out  any  public 
and  national  considerations  which  require  action  at  this  time.  Senators 
seem  to  forget  that  our  immense  and  valuable  possessions  on  the  Pacific  are 
separated  from  the  States  and  organized  Territories,  on  this  side  of  the 
Rocky  Mountains,  by  a  vast  wilderness,  filled  by  hostile  savages;  that 
nearly  a  hundred  thousand  emigrants  pass  through  this  barbarous  wilder 
ness  every  year,  on  their  way  to  California  and  Oregon;  that  these  emi 
grants  are  American  citizens,  our  own  constituents,  who  are  entitled  to 
the  protection  of  law  and  government;  and  that  they  are  left  to  make  their 
way,  as  best  they  may,  without  the  protection  or  aid  of  law  or  government. 

The  United  States  mails  for  New  Mexico  and  Utah,  and  all  official  com 
munications  between  this  Government  and  the  authorities  of  those  Terri 
tories,  are  required  to  be  carried  over  these  wild  plains,  and  through  the 
gorges  of  the  mountains,  where  you  have  made  no  provision  for  roads, 
bridges,  or  ferries,  to  facilitate  travel  or  forts  or  other  means  of  safety  to 
protect  life.  As  often  as  I  have  brought  forward  and  urged  the  adoption 
of  measures  to  remedy  these  evils  and  afford  security  against  the  dangers 
to  which  our  people  are  constantly  exposed,  they  have  been  promptly 
voted  down  as  not  being  of  sufficient  importance  to  command  the  favorable 
consideration  of  Congress.  Now,  when  I  propose  to  organize  the  Territories, 
and  allow  the  people  to  do  for  themselves  what  you  have  so  often  refused 
to  do  for  them,  I  am  told  that  there  are  not  white  inhabitants  enough 
permanently  settled  in  the  country  to  require  and  sustain  a  Government. 
True  there  is  not  a  very  large  population  there,  for  the  very  good  reason 
that  your  Indian  code  and  intercourse  laws  exclude  the  settlers,  and  forbid 
their  remaining  there  to  cultivate  the  soil.  You  refuse  to  throw  the  country 
open  to  settlers,  and  then  object  to  the  organization  of  the  Territories  upon 
the  ground  that  there  is  not  a  sufficient  number  of  inhabitants. 

The  senator  from  Connecticut  [Mr.  Smith]  has  made  a  long  argument 
to  prove  that  there  are  no  inhabitants  in  the  proposed  Territories  because 
nearly  all  of  those  who  have  gone  and  settled  there  have  done  so  in  viola 
tion  of  certain  old  acts  of  Congress  which  forbid  the  people  to  take  posses 
sion  of  and  settle  upon  the  public  lands  until  after  they  should  be  surveyed 
and  brought  into  market. 

I  do  not  propose  to  discuss  the  question  whether  these  settlers  are 


188  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

technically  legal  inhabitants  or  not.  It  is  enough  for  me  that  they  are  a 
part  of  our  own  people ;  that  they  are  settled  on  the  public  domain ;  that 
the  public  interests  would  be  promoted  by  throwing  that  public  domain 
open  to  settlement;  and  that  there  is  no  good  reason  why  the  protection 
of  law  and  the  blessings  of  government  should  not  be  extended  to  them. 
I  must  be  permitted  to  remind  the  senator  that  the  same  objection  existed 
in  its  full  force  to  Minnesota,  to  Oregon,  and  to  Washington,  when  each 
of  those  Territories  was  organized ;  and  that  I  have  no  recollection  that  he 
deemed  it  his  duty  to  call  the  attention  of  Congress  to  the  objection,  or 
considered  it  of  sufficient  importance  to  justify  him  in  recording  his  own 
vote  against  the  organization  of  either  of  those  Territories. 

Mr.  President,  I  do  not  feel  called  upon  to  make  any  reply  to  the  argu 
ment  which  the  senator  from  Connecticut  has  urged  against  the  passage 
of  this  bill  upon  the  score  of  expense  in  sustaining  these  Territorial  Gov 
ernments,  for  the  reason  that,  if  the  public  interests  require  the  enactment 
of  the  law,  it  follows  as  a  natural  consequence  that  all  the  expenses  neces 
sary  to  carry  it  into  effect  are  wise  and  proper. 

I  will  now  proceed  to  the  consideration  of  the  great  principle  involved 
in  the  bill,  without  omitting,  however,  to  notice  some  of  those  extraneous 
matters  which  have  been  brought  into  this  discussion  with  the  view  of 
producing  another  anti-slavery  agitation.  We  have  been  told  by  nearly 
every  senator  who  has  spoken  in  opposition  to  this  bill,  that  at  the  time 
of  its  introduction  the  people  were  in  a  state  of  profound  quiet  and  repose ; 
that  the  anti-slavery  agitation  had  entirely  ceased;  and  that  the  whole 
country  was  acquiescing  cheerfully  and  cordially  in  the  Compromise  meas 
ures  of  1850  as  a  final  adjustment  of  this  vexed  question. 

Sir,  it  is  truly  refreshing  to  hear  senators,  who  contested  every  inch  of 
ground  in  opposition  to  those  measures  when  they  were  under  discussion, 
who  predicted  all  manner  of  evils  and  calamities  from  their  adoption,  and 
who  raised  the  cry  of  repeal,  and  even  resistance  to  their  execution,  after 
they  had  become  the  laws  of  the  land  —  I  say  it  is  really  refreshing  to  hear 
these  same  senators  now  bear  their  united  testimony  to  the  wisdom  of 
those  measures,  and  to  the  patriotic  motives  which  induced  us  to  pass 
them  in  defiance  of  their  threats  and  resistance,  and  to  their  beneficial 
effects  in  restoring  peace,  harmony,  and  fraternity  to  a  distracted  country. 
.  .  .  The  two  great  political  parties  of  the  country  stood  solemnly  pledged 
before  the  world  to  adhere  to  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850,  in  principle 
and  substance.  A  large  majority  of  the  Senate,  indeed,  every  member  of 
the  body,  I  believe,  except  the  two  avowed  Abolitionists  [Mr.  Chase  and 
Mr.  Sumner],  profess  to  belong  to  the  one  or  the  other  of  these  parties,  and 
hence  were  supposed  to  be  under  a  high  moral  obligation  to  carry  out  the 
principle  and  substance  of  those  measures  in  all  the  new  Territorial  organi 
zations.  The  report  of  the  committee  was  in  accordance  with  this  obliga 
tion.  I  am  arraigned,  therefore,  for  having  endeavored  to  represent  the 
opinions  and  principles  of  the  Senate  truly;  for  having  performed  my  duty 
in  conformity  with  the  parliamentary  law;  for  having  been  faithful  to 
the  trust  reposed  in  me  by  the  Senate.  Let  the  vote  this  night  determine 


APPENDIX  189 

whether  I  have  thus  faithfully  represented  your  opinions.  When  a  majority 
of  the  Senate  shall  have  passed  the  bill;  when  a  majority  of  the  States 
shall' have  endorsed  it  through  their  representatives  upon  this  floor;  when 
a  majority  of  the  South  and  a  majority  of  the  North  shall  have  sanctioned 
it;  when  a  majority  of  the  Whig  party  and  a  majority  of  the  Democratic 
party  shall  have  voted  for  it;  when  each  of  these  propositions  shall  be 
demonstrated  by  the  vote  this  night  on  the  final  passage  of  the  bill,  I  shall 
be  willing  to  submit  the  question  to  the  country,  whether,  as  the  organ  of 
the  committee,  I  performed  my  duty  in  the  report  and  bill  which  have 
called  down  upon  my  head  so  much  denunciation  and  abuse. 

Mr.  President,  the  opponents  of  this  measure  have  had  much  to  say 
about  the  mutations  and  modifications  which  this  bill  has  undergone  since 
it  was  first  introduced  by  myself,  and  about  the  alleged  departure  of  the 
bill,  in  its  present  form,  from  the  principle  laid  down  in  the  original  report 
of  the  committee  as  a  rule  of  action  in  all  future  Territorial  organizations. 
Fortunately  there  is  no  necessity,  even  if  your  patience  would  tolerate 
such  a  course  of  argument  at  this  late  hour  of  the  night,  for  me  to  examine 
these  speeches  in  detail,  and  to  reply  to  each  charge  separately.  Each 
speaker  seems  to  have  followed  faithfully  in  the  footsteps  of  his  leader  — 
in  the  path  marked  out  by  the  Abolition  confederates  in  their  manifesto, 
which  I  exposed  on  a  former  occasion.  You  have  seen  them  on  their  wind 
ing  way,  meandering  the  narrow  and  crooked  path  in  Indian  file,  each 
treading  close  upon  the  heels  of  the  other,  and  neither  venturing  to  take 
a  step  to  the  right  or  left,  or  to  occupy  one  inch  of  ground  which  did  not 
bear  the  foot-print  of  the  Abolition  champion.  To  answer  one,  therefore, 
is  to  answer  the  whole.  The  statement  to  which  they  seem  to  attach  the 
most  importance,  and  which  they  have  repeated  oftener  perhaps  than  any 
other,  is  that,  pending  the  compromise  measures  of  1850,  no  man  in  or 
out  of  Congress  ever  dreamed  of  abrogating  the  Missouri  Compromise; 
that  from  that  period  down  to  the  present  session  nobody  supposed  that 
its  validity  had  been  impaired,  or  any  thing  done  which  rendered  it  obliga 
tory  upon  us  to  make  it  inoperative  hereafter;  that  at  the  time  of  sub 
mitting  the  report  and  bill  to  the  Senate,  on  the  fourth  of  January 
last,  neither  I  nor  any  member  of  the  committee  ever  thought  of  such 
a  thing;  and  that  we  could  never  be  brought  up  to  the  point  of  abrogat 
ing  the  eighth  section  of  the  Missouri  act  until  after  the  senator  from 
Kentucky  introduced  his  amendment  to  my  bill. 

Mr.  President,  before  I  proceed  to  expose  the  many  misrepresentations 
contained  in  this  complicated  charge,  I  must  call  the  attention  of  the 
Senate  to  the  false  issue  which  these  gentlemen  are  endeavoring  to  impose 
upon  the  country,  for  the  purpose  of  diverting  public  attention  from  the 
real  issue  contained  in  the  bill.  They  wish  to  have  the  people  believe  that 
the  abrogation  of  what  they  call  the  Missouri  Compromise  was  the  main 
object  and  aim  of  the  bill,  and  that  the  only  question  involved  is,  whether 
the  prohibition  of  slavery  north  of  36°  30'  shall  be  repealed  or  not?  That 
which  is  a  mere  incident  they  choose  to  consider  the  principle.  They 
make  war  on  the  means  by  which  we  propose  to  accomplish  an  object, 


190  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

instead  of  openly  resisting  the  object  itself.  The  principle  which  we  pro 
pose  to  carry  into  effect  by  the  bill  is  this:  That  Congress  shall  neither 
legislate  slavery  into  any  Territory  or  State,  nor  out  of  the  same;  but  the  peo 
ple  shall  be  left  free  to  regulate  their  domestic  concerns  in  their  own  way,  subject 
only  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

In  order  to  carry  this  principle  into  practical  operation,  it  becomes 
necessary  to  remove  whatever  legal  obstacles  might  be  found  in  the  way 
of  its  free  exercise.  It  is  only  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  out  this  great 
fundamental  principle  of  self-government  that  the  bill  renders  the  eighth 
section  of  the  Missouri  act  inoperative  and  void. 

Mr.  President,  I  could  go  on  and  multiply  extract  after  extract  from  my 
speeches  in  1850,  and  prior  to  that  date,  to  show  that  this  doctrine  of 
leaving  the  people  to  decide  these  questions  for  themselves  is  not  an  after 
thought  with  me,  seized  upon  this  session  for  the  first  time,  as  my  calum 
niators  have  so  frequently  and  boldly  charged  in  their  speeches  during 
this  debate,  and  in  their  manifesto  to  the  public.  I  refused  to  support 
the  celebrated  Omnibus  Bill  in  1850  until  the  obnoxious  provision  was 
stricken  out,  and  the  principle  of  self-government  restored,  as  it  existed 
in  my  original  bill.  No  sooner  were  the  compromise  measures  of  1850 
passed,  than  the  Abolition  confederates,  who  lead  the  opposition  to  this 
bill  now,  raised  the  cry  of  repeal  in  some  sections  of  the  country,  and  in 
others  forcible  resistance  to  the  execution  of  the  law.  In  order  to  arrest 
and  suppress  the  treasonable  purposes  of  these  Abolition  confederates, 
and  avert  the  horrors  of  civil  war,  it  became  my  duty,  on  the  twenty- 
third  of  October,  1850,  to  address  an  excited  and  frenzied  multitude  at 
Chicago,  in  defence  of  each  and  all  the  compromise  measures  of  that  year. 
I  will  read  one  or  two  sentences  from  that  speech,  to  show  how  those 
measures  were  then  understood  and  explained  by  their  advocates : 

"These  measures  are  predicated  on  the  great  fundamental  principle 
that  every  people  ought  to  possess  the  right  of  forming  and  regulating 
their  own  internal  concerns  and  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way." 

Again : 

"These  things  are  all  confided  by  the  Constitution  to  each  State  to 
decide  for  itself,  and  I  KNOW  OF  NO  REASON  WHY  THE  same  principle  should 
not  be  confided  to  the  Territories." 

In  this  speech  it  will  be  seen  that  I  lay  down  a  general  principle  of  uni 
versal  application,  and  make  no  distinction  between  Territories  North  or 
South  of  36°  30'. 

I  am  aware  that  some  of  the  Abolition  confederates  have  perpetrated 
a  monstrous  forgery  on  that  speech,  and  are  now  circulating  through  the 
Abolition  newspapers  the  statement  that  I  said  that  I  would  "cling  with 
the  tenacity  of  life  to  the  compromise  of  1850."  This  statement,  false 
as  it  is  —  a  deliberate  act  of  forgery,  as  it  is  known  to  be  by  all  who  have 
ever  seen  or  read  the  speech  referred  to  —  constitutes  the  staple  article  out 
of  which  most  of  the  Abolition  orators  at  the  small  anti-Nebraska  meet 
ings  manufacture  the  greater  part  of  their  speeches.  I  now  declare  that 


APPENDIX  191 

there  is  not  a  sentence,  or  a  line,  nor  even  a  word  in  that  speech,  which 
imposes  the  slightest  limitation  on  the  application  of  the  great  principle 
embraced  in  this  bill  in  all  new  Territorial  organizations,  without  the 
least  reference  to  the  line  of  36°  30'. 

At  the  session  of  1850-51,  a  few  weeks  after  this  speech  was  made  at 
Chicago,  and  when  it  had  been  published  in  pamphlet  form  and  circulated 
extensively  over  the  States,  the  Legislature  of  Illinois  proceeded  to  re 
vise  its  action  upon  the  slavery  question,  and  define  its  position  on  the 
compromise  of  1850.  After  rescinding  the  resolutions  adopted  at  a  pre 
vious  session,  instructing  my  colleague  and  myself  to  vote  for  a  proposi 
tion  prohibiting  slavery  in  the  Territories,  resolutions  were  adopted 
approving  the  compromise  measures  of  1850.  I  will  read  one  of  the 
resolutions,  which  was  adopted  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  by  a  vote 
of  61  yeas  to  4  nays: 

"Resolved,  That  our  liberty  and  independence  are  based  upon  the  right 
of  the  people  to  form  for  themselves  such  a  Government  as  they  may 
choose;  that  this  great  privilege  —  the  birthright  of  freemen,  the  gift 
of  heaven,  secured  to  us  by  the  blood  of  our  ancesters  —  ought  to  be  ex 
tended  to  future  generations ;  and  no  limitation  ought  to  be  applied  to  this 
power,  in  the  organization  of  any  Territory  of  the  United  States,  of  either 
a  Territorial  Government  or  a  State  Constitution :  Provided,  the  Govern 
ment  so  established  shall  be  republican,  and  in  conformity  with  the  Con 
stitution." 

Another  series  of  resolutions  having  passed  the  Senate  almost  unani 
mously,  embracing  the  same  principle  in  different  language,  they  were 
concurred  in  by  the  House.  Thus  was  the  position  of  Illinois,  upon  the 
slavery  question,  defined  at  the  first  session  of  the  Legislature  after 
the  adoption  of  the  compromise  of  1850. 

But  my  accusers  attempt  to  raise  up  a  false  issue,  and  thereby  divert 
public  attention  from  the  real  one,  by  the  cry  that  the  Missouri  Com 
promise  is  to  be  repealed  or  violated  by  the  passage  of  this  bill.  Well, 
if  the  eighth  section  of  the  Missouri  Act,  which  attempted  to  fix  the  desti 
nies  of  future  generations  in  those  Territories  for  all  time  to  come,  in  utter 
disregard  of  the  rights  and  wishes  of  the  people  when  they  should  be  re 
ceived  into  the  Union  as  States,  be  inconsistent  with  the  great  principle 
of  self-government  and  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  it  ought  to 
be  abrogated.  The  legislation  of  1850  abrogated  the  Missouri  Compromise, 
so  far  as  the  country  embraced  within  the  limits  of  Utah  and  New  Mexico 
was  covered  by  the  slavery  restriction.  It  is  true,  that  those  acts  did  not 
in  terms  and  by  name  repeal  the  act  of  1820,  as  originally  adopted,  or  as 
extended  by  the  resolutions  annexing  Texas  in  1845,  any  more  than  the 
report  of  the  Committee  on  Territories  proposes  to  repeal  the  same  acts 
this  session.  But  the  acts  of  1850  did  authorize  the  people  of  those  Terri 
tories  to  exercise  "all  rightful  powers  of  legislation  consistent  with  the 
Constitution,"  not  excepting  the  question  of  slavery;  and  did  provide 
that,  when  those  Territories  should  be  admitted  into  the  Union,  they 


192  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

should  be  received  with  or  without  slavery,  as  the  people  thereof  might 
determine  at  the  date  of  their  admission.  These  provisions  were  in  direct 
conflict  with  a  clause  in  a  former  enactment,  declaring  that  slavery  should 
be  forever  prohibited  in  any  portion  of  said  Territories,  and  hence  rendered 
such  clause  inoperative  and  void  to  the  extent  of  such  conflict.  This 
was  an  inevitable  consequence,  resulting  from  the  provisions  in  those 
acts  which  gave  the  people  the  right  to  decide  the  slavery  question  for 
themselves,  in  conformity  with  the  Constitution.  It  was  not  necessary 
to  go  further  and  declare  that  certain  previous  enactments,  which  were 
incompatible  with  the  exercise  of  the  powers  conferred  in  the  bills,  "are 
hereby  repealed."  The  very  act  of  granting  those  powers  and  rights  has 
the  legal  effect  of  removing  all  obstructions  to  the  exercise  of  them  by  the 
people,  as  prescribed  in  those  Territorial  bills.  Following  that  example, 
the  Committee  on  Territories  did  not  consider  it  necessary  to  declare  the 
eighth  section  of  the  Missouri  Act  repealed.  We  were  content  to  organize 
Nebraska  in  the  precise  language  of  the  Utah  and  New  Mexican  bills. 
Our  object  was  to  leave  the  people  entirely  free  to  form  and  regulate  their 
domestic  institutions  and  internal  concerns  in  their  own  way,  under  the 
Constitution;  and  we  deemed  it  wise  to  accomplish  that  object  in  the 
exact  terms  in  which  the  same  thing  had  been  done  in  Utah  and  New 
Mexico  by  the  acts  of  1850.  This  was  the  principle  upon  which  the  com 
mittee  reported ;  and  our  bill  was  supposed,  and  is  now  believed,  to  have 
been  in  accordance  with  it.  When  doubts  were  raised  whether  the  bill 
did  fully  carry  out  the  principles  laid  down  in  the  report,  amendments 
were  made,  from  time  to  time,  in  order  to  avoid  all  misconstruction,  and 
make  the  true  intent  of  the  act  more  explicit.  The  last  of  these  amend 
ments  was  adopted  yesterday,  on  the  motion  of  the  distinguished  senator 
from  North  Carolina  [Mr.  Badger],  in  regard  to  the  revival  of  any  laws 
or  regulations  which  may  have  existed  prior  to  1820.  That  amendment 
was  not  intended  to  change  the  legal  effect  of  the  bill.  Its  object  was  to 
repel  the  slander  which  had  been  propagated  by  the  enemies  of  the  measure 
in  the  North,  that  the  Southern  supporters  of  the  bill  desired  to  legislate 
slavery  into  these  Territories.  The  South  denies  the  right  of  Congress 
either  to  legislate  slavery  into  any  Territory  or  State,  or  out  of  any  Ter 
ritory  or  State.  Non-intervention  by  Congress  with  slavery  in  the  States 
or  Territories  is  the  doctrine  of  the  bill,  and  all  the  amendments  which 
have  been  agreed  to  have  been  made  with  the  view  of  removing  all  doubt 
and  cavil  as  to  the  true  meaning  and  object  of  the  measure. 

Well,  sir,  what  is  this  Missouri  Compromise,  of  which  we  have  heard 
so  much  of  late?  It  has  been  read  so  often  that  it  is  not  necessary  to 
occupy  the  time  of  the  Senate  in  reading  it  again.  It  was  an  act  of  Con 
gress,  passed  on  the  sixth  of  March,  1820,  to  authorize  the  people  of  Missouri 
to  form  a  Constitution  and  a  State  Government,  preparatory  to  the  ad 
mission  of  such  State  into  the  Union.  The  first  section  provided  that 
Missouri  should  be  received  into  the  Union  "on  an  equal  footing  with  the 
original  States  in  all  respects  whatsoever."  The  last  and  eighth  section 


APPENDIX  19 


provided  that  slavery  should  be  "forever  prohibited"  in  all  the  Terri 
tories  which  had  been  acquired  from  France  north  of  36°  30',  and  not 
included  within  the  limits  of  the  State  of  Missouri.  There  is  nothing  in 
the  terms  of  the  law  that  purports  to  be  a  compact,  or  indicates  that  it 
was  anything  more  than  an  ordinary  act  of  legislation.  To  prove  that 
it  was  more  than  it  purports  to  be  on  its  face,  gentlemen  must  produce 
other  evidence,  and  prove  that  there  was  such  an  understanding  as  to 
create  a  moral  obligation  in  the  nature  of  a  compact.  Have  they  shown  it  ? 

I  have  heard  but  one  item  of  evidence  produced  during  this  whole  de 
bate,  and  that  was  a  short  paragraph  from  Niles's  Register,  published  a 
few  days  after  the  passage  of  the  act.  But  gentlemen  aver  that  it  was  a 
solemn  compact,  which  could  not  be  violated  or  abrogated  without  dis 
honor.  According  to  their  understanding,  the  contract  was  that,  in  con 
sideration  of  the  admission  of  Missouri  into  the  Union,  on  an  equal 
footing  with  the  original  States  in  all  respects  whatsoever,  slavery  should 
be  prohibited  forever  in  the  Territories  north  of  36°  30'.  Now,  who  were 
the  parties  to  this  alleged  compact?  They  tell  us  that  it  was  a  stipula 
tion  between  the  North  and  the  South.  Sir,  I  know  of  no  such  parties 
under  the  Constitution.  I  am  unwilling  that  there  shall  be  any  such  par 
ties  known  in  our  legislation.  If  there  is  such  a  geographical  line,  it  ought 
to  be  obliterated  forever;  and  there  should  be  no  other  parties  than 
those  provided  for  in  the  Constitution,  namely,  the  States  of  this  Union. 
These  are  the  only  parties  capable  of  contracting  under  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States. 

Now,  if  this  was  a  compact,  let  us  see  how  it  was  entered  into.  The 
bill  originated  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  passed  that  body 
without  a  Southern  vote  in  its  favor.  It  is  proper  to  remark,  however, 
that  it  did  not  at  that  time  contain  the  eighth  section,  prohibiting  slavery 
in  the  Territories;  but,  in  lieu  of  it,  contained  a  provision  prohibiting 
slavery  in  the  proposed  State  of  Missouri.  In  the  Senate,  the  clause  pro 
hibiting  slavery  in  the  State  was  stricken  out,  and  the  eighth  section  added 
to  the  end  of  the  bill,  by  the  terms  of  which  slavery  was  to  be  forever 
prohibited  in  the  territory  not  embraced  in  the  State  of  Missouri  north 
of  36°  30'.  The  vote  on  adding  this  section  stood,  in  the  Senate,  34  in 
the  affirmative,  and  10  in  the  negative.  Of  the  Northern  senators,  20 
voted  for  it  and  2  against  it.  On  the  question  of  ordering  the  bill  to  a 
third  reading  as  amended,  which  was  the  test  vote  on  its  passage,  the  vote 
stood  24  yeas  and  20  nays.  Of  the  Northern  senators,  4  only  voted  in  the 
affirmative,  and  18  in  the  negative.  Thus  it  will  be  seen  that,  if  it  was 
intended  to  be  a  compact,  the  North  never  agreed  to  it.  The  Northern 
senators  voted  to  insert  the  prohibition  of  slavery  in  the  Territories;  and 
then,  in  the  proportion  of  more  than  four  to  one,  voted  against  the  pas 
sage  of  the  bill.  The  North,  therefore,  never  signed  the  compact,  never 
consented  to  it,  never  agreed  to  be  bound  by  it.  This  fact  becomes  very 
important  in  vindicating  the  character  of  the  North  for  repudiating  this 
alleged  compromise  a  few  months  afterwards.  The  act  was  approved 
and  became  a  law  on  the  sixth  of  March,  1820.  In  the  Summer  of  that 

13 


194  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

year,  the  people  of  Missouri  formed  a  Constitution  and  State  Government 
preparatory  to  admission  into  the  Union,  in  conformity  with  the  act.  At 
the  next  session  of  Congress  the  Senate  passed  a  joint  resolution,  declaring 
Missouri  to  be  one  of  the  States  of  the  Union,  on  an  equal  footing  with 
the  original  States.  This  resolution  was  sent  to  the  House  of  Repre 
sentatives,  where  it  was  rejected  by  Northern  votes,  and  thus  Missouri 
was  voted  out  of  the  Union,  instead  of  being  received  into  the  Union 
under  the  act  of  the  sixth  of  March,  1820,  now  known  as  the  Missouri 
Compromise. 

I  undertake  to  maintain  that  the  North  objected  to  Missouri  be 
cause  she  allowed  slavery,  and  not  because  of  the  free-negro  clause  alone. 

Mr.  Seward.     No,  sir. 

Mr.  Douglas.  Now  I  will  proceed  to  prove  that  the  North  did  not  ob 
ject,  solely  on  account  of  the  free-negro  clause ;  but  that,  in  the  House  of 
Representatives  at  that  time,  the  North  objected  as  well  because  of  slavery 
as  in  regard  to  free  negroes.  Here  is  the  evidence.  In  the  House  of  Repre 
sentatives,  on  the  twelfth  of  February,  1821,  Mr.  Mallory,  of  Vermont, 
moved  to  amend  the  Senate  joint  resolution  for  the  admission  of  Missouri, 
as  follows : 

"To  amend  the  said  amendment,  by  striking  out  all  thereof  after  the 
word  respects,  and  inserting  the  following:  'Whenever  the  people  of  the 
said  State,  by  a  convention,  appointed  according  to  the  manner  provided 
by  the  act  to  authorize  the  people  of  Missouri  to  form  a  Constitution  and 
State  Government,  and  for  the  admission  of  such  State  into  the  Union  on 
an  equal  footing  with  the  original  States,  and  to  prohibit  slavery  in  cer 
tain  Territories,  approved  March  6,  1820,  adopt  a  Constitution  conform 
ably  to  the  provisions  of  said  act,  and  shall,  IN  ADDITION  to  said  provision, 
further  provide,  in  and  by  said  Constitution,  that  neither  slavery  nor  involun 
tary  servitude  shall  ever  be  allowed  in  said  State  of  Missouri,  unless  inflicted 
as  a  punishment  for  crimes  committed  against  the  laws  of  said  State, 
whereof  the  party  accused  shall  be  duly  convicted:  Provided,  That  the 
civil  condition  of  those  persons  who  now  are  held  to  service  in  Missouri 
shall  not  be  affected  by  this  last  provision." 

Here  I  show,  then,  that  the  proposition  was  made  that  Missouri  should 
not  come  in  unless,  in  addition  to  complying  with  the  Missouri  Compromise, 
she  would  go  further,  and  prohibit  slavery  within  the  limits  of  the  State. 

Sir,  if  this  was  a  compact,  what  must  be  thought  of  those  who  violated 
it  almost  immediately  after  it  was  formed  ?  I  say  it  was  a  calumny  upon 
the  North  to  say  that  it  was  a  compact.  I  should  feel  a  flush  of  shame 
upon  my  cheek,  as  a  Northern  man,  if  I  were  to  say  that  it  was  a  compact, 
and  that  the  section  of  country  to  which  I  belong  received  the  considera 
tion,  and  then  repudiated  the  obligation  in  eleven  months  after  it  was  en 
tered  into.  I  deny  that  it  was  a  compact  in  any  sense  of  the  term.  But  if 
it  was,  the  record  proves  that  faith  was  not  observed ;  that  the  contract  was 
never  carried  into  effect ;  that  after  the  North  had  procured  the  passage 


APPENDIX  195 

of  the  act  prohibiting  slavery  in  the  Territories,  with  a  majority  in  the 
House  large  enough  to  prevent  its  repeal,  Missouri  was  refused  admission 
into  the  Union  as  a  slaveholding  State,  in  conformity  with  the  act  of 
March  6,  1820.  If  the  proposition  be  correct,  as  contended  for  by  the 
opponents  of  this  bill,  that  there  was  a  solemn  compact  between  the 
North  and  South  that,  in  consideration  of  the  prohibition  of  slavery  in 
the  Territories,  Missouri  was  to  be  admitted  into  the  Union  in  conformity 
with  the  act  of  1820,  that  compact  was  repudiated  by  the  North  and  re 
scinded  by  the  joint  action  of  the  two  parties  within  twelve  months  from 
its  date.  Missouri  was  never  admitted  under  the  act  of  the  sixth  of  March, 
1820.  She  was  refused  admission  under  that  act.  She  was  voted  out  of 
the  Union  by  Northern  votes,  notwithstanding  the  stipulation  that  she 
should  be  received ;  and,  in  consequence  of  these  facts,  a  new  compromise 
was  rendered  necessary,  by  the  terms  of  which  Missouri  was  to  be  admitted 
into  the  Union  conditionally  —  admitted  on  a  condition  not  embraced  in 
the  act  of  1820,  and,  in  addition,  to  a  full  compliance  with  all  the  provisions 
of  said  act.  If,  then,  the  act  of  1820,  by  the  eighth  section  of  which  slavery 
was  prohibited  in  the  Territories,  was  a  compact,  it  is  clear  to  the  com 
prehension  of  every  fair-minded  man  that  the  refusal  of  the  North  to  admit 
Missouri,  in  compliance  with  its  stipulations  and  without  further  condi 
tions,  imposes  upon  us  a  high  moral  obligation  to  remove  the  prohibition 
of  slavery  in  the  Territories,  since  it  has  been  shown  to  have  been  procured 
upon  a  condition  never  performed. 

Mr.  President,  inasmuch  as  the  senator  from  New  York  has  taken  great 
pains  to  impress  upon  the  public  mind  of  the  North  the  conviction  that 
the  act  of  1820  was  a  solemn  compact,  the  violation  or  repudiation  of 
which  by  either  party  involves  perfidy  and  dishonor,  I  wish  to  call  the 
attention  of  that  senator  [Mr.  Seward]  to  the  fact  that  his  own  State  waa 
the  first  to  repudiate  the  compact  and  to  instruct  her  senators  in  Congress 
not  to  admit  Missouri  into  the  Union  in  compliance  with  it,  nor  unless 
slavery  should  be  prohibited  in  the  State  of  Missouri. 

Mr.  Seward.     That  is  so. 

Mr.  Douglas.  I  have  the  resolutions  before  me,  in  the  printed  Journal 
of  the  Senate.  The  senator  from  New  York  is  familiar  with  the  fact,  and 
frankly  admits  it : 

"STATE  OF  NEW  YORK, 
"!N  ASSEMBLY,  November  13,  1820. 

"Whereas,  the  Legislature  of  this  State,  at  the  last  session,  did  instruct 
their  senators  and  request  their  representatives  in  Congress  to  oppose  the 
admission,  as  a  State,  into  the  Union,  of  any  Territory  not  comprised 
within  the  original  boundaries  of  the  United  States,  without  making  the 
prohibition  of  slavery  therein  an  indispensable  condition  of  admission; 
and  whereas  this  Legislature  is  impressed  with  the  correctness  of  the  sen 
timents  so  communicated  to  our  senators  and  representatives :  Therefore, 
,  "Resolved  (if  the  honorable  the  Senate  concur  herein),  That  this  Legis 
lature  does  approve  of  the  principles  contained  in  the  resolutions  of  the 


196  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 

last  session ;  and  further,  if  the  provisions  contained  in  any  proposed  Con 
stitution  of  a  new  State  deny  to  any  citizens  of  the  existing  States,  the 
privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens  of  such  new  State,  that  such  proposed 
Constitution  should  not  be  accepted  or  confirmed ;  the  same,  in  the  opinion 
of  this  Legislature,  being  void  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 
And  that  our  senators  be  instructed,  and  our  representatives  in  Congress 
be  requested,  to  use  their  utmost  exertions  to  prevent  the  acceptance  and 
confirmation  of  any  such  Constitution." 

It  will  be  seen  by  these  resolutions  that  at  the  previous  session  the 
New  York  Legislature  had  "instructed"  the  senators  from  that  State  "TO 

OPPOSE  THE  ADMISSION,  AS  A  STATE,   INTO  THE  UNION  OF  ANY  TERRITORY 

not  comprised  within  the  original  boundaries  of  the  United  States,  WITH 
OUT  MAKING  THE  PROHIBITION  OF  SLAVERY  THEREIN  AN  INDISPENSABLE 
CONDITION  OF  ADMISSION." 

These  instructions  are  not  confined  to  territory  north  of  36°  30'.  They 
apply,  and  were  intended  to  apply,  to  the  whole  country  west  of  the 
Mississippi,  and  to  all  territory  which  might  hereafter  be  acquired.  They 
deny  the  right  of  Arkansas  to  admission  as  a  slaveholding  State,  as  well 
as  Missouri.  They  lay  down  a  general  principle  to  be  applied  and  insisted 
upon  everywhere,  and  in  all  cases,  and  under  all  circumstances.  These 
resolutions  were  first  adopted  prior  to  the  passage  of  the  act  of  March  6, 
1820,  which  the  senator  now  chooses  to  call  a  compact.  But  they  were 
renewed  and  repeated  on  the  thirteenth  of  November,  1820,  a  little  more 
than  eight  months  after  the  adoption  of  the  Missouri  Compromise,  as 
instructions  to  the  New  York  senators  to  resist  the  admission  of  Missouri 
as  a  slaveholding  State,  notwithstanding  the  stipulations  in  the  alleged 
compact. 

But  since  the  senator  [Mr.  Seward]  has  chosen  to  make  an  issue  with 
me  in  respect  to  the  action  of  New  York,  with  the  view  of  condemning  my 
conduct  here,  I  will  invite  the  attention  of  the  senator  to  another  portion 
of  these  resolutions.  Referring  to  the  fourteenth  section  of  the  Nebraska 
Bill,  the  Legislature  of  New  York  says : 

"That  the  adoption  of  this  provision  would  be  in  derogation  of  the 
truth,  a  gross  violation  of  plighted  faith,  and  an  outrage  and  indignity 
upon  the  free  States  of  the  Union,  whose  assent  has  been  yielded  to  the 
admission  into  the  Union  of  Missouri  and  of  Arkansas,  with  slavery,  in 
reliance  upon  the  faithful  observance  of  the  provision  (now  sought  to  be 
abrogated)  known  as  the  Missouri  Compromise,  whereby  slavery  was  de 
clared  to  be  "forever  prohibited  in  all  that  territory  ceded  by  France  to 
the  United  States,  under  the  name  of  Louisiana,  which  lies  north  of  36°  30' 
north  latitude,  not  included  within  the  limits  of  the  State  of  Missouri." 

I  have  no  comments  to  make  upon  the  courtesy  and  propriety  exhibited 
in  this  legislative  declaration,  that  a  provision  in  a  bill,  reported  by  a 
regular  committee  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  and  known  to  be 
approved  by  three-fourths  of  the  body,  and  which  has  since  received  the 
sanction  of  their  votes,  is  "in  derogation  of  truth,  a  gross  violation  of 


APPENDIX  197 

plighted  faith,  and  an  outrage  and  indignity,"  etc.  The  opponents  of  this 
measure  claim  a  monopoly  of  all  the  courtesies  and  amenities  which  should 
be  observed  among  gentlemen,  and  especially  in  the  performance  of  official 
duties;  and  I  am  free  to  say  that  this  is  one  of  the  mildest  and  most  re 
spectful  forms  of  expression  in  which  they  have  indulged.  But  there  is 
a  declaration  in  this  resolution  to  which  I  wish  to  invite  the  particular 
attention  of  the  Senate  and  the  country.  It  is  the  distinct  allegation  that 
the  free  States  of  the  Union,  including  New  York,  yielded  their  "  assent 
to  the  admission  into  the  Union  of  Missouri  and  Arkansas,  with  slavery, 
in  reliance  upon  the  faithful  observance  of  the  provision  known  as  the 
Missouri  Compromise." 

Now,  sir,  since  the  Legislature  of  New  York  has  gone  out  of  its  way  to 
arraign  the  State  on  matters  of  truth,  I  will  demonstrate  that  this  para 
graph  contains  two  material  statements  in  direct  derogation  of  truth.  I 
have  already  shown,  beyond  controversy,  by  the  records  of  the  Legisla 
ture  and  by  the  Journals  of  the  Senate,  that  New  York  never  did  give  her 
assent  to  the  admission  of  Missouri  with  slavery !  Hence,  I  must  be  per 
mitted  to  say,  in  the  polite  language  of  her  own  resolutions,  that  the 
statement  that  New  York  yielded  her  assent  to  the  admission  of  Missouri 
with  slavery  is  in  derogation  of  truth !  And  secondly,  the  statement  that 
such  assent  was  given  "in  reliance  upon  the  faithful  observance  of  the 
Missouri  Compromise  "  is  equally  in  derogation  of  truth.  New  York  never 
assented  to  the  admission  of  Missouri  as  a  slave  State,  never  assented  to 
what  she  now  calls  the  Missouri  Compromise,  never  observed  its  stipu 
lations  as  a  compact,  never  has  been  willing  to  carry  it  out ;  but,  on  the 
contrary,  has  always  resisted  it,  as  I  have  demonstrated  by  her  own 
records. 

Mr.  President,  I  have  before  me  other  journals,  records,  and  instructions, 
which  prove  that  New  York  was  not  the  only  free  State  that  repudiated 
the  Missouri  Compromise  of  1820,  within  twelve  months  from  its  date. 
I  will  not  occupy  the  time  of  the  Senate  at  this  late  hour  of  the  night  by 
referring  to  them,  unless  some  opponent  of  the  bill  renders  it  necessary. 
In  that  event,  I  may  be  able  to  place  other  senators  and  their  States  in 
the  same  unenviable  position  in  which  the  senator  from  New  York  has 
found  himself  and  his  State. 

I  think  I  have  shown,  that  to  call  the  act  of  the  sixth  of  March,  1820, 
a  compact,  binding  in  honor,  is  to  charge  the  Northern  States  of  this 
Union  with  an  act  of  perfidy  unparalleled  in  the  history  of  legislation  or 
of  civilization.  I  have  already  adverted  to  the  facts,  that  in  the  Summer 
of  1820  Missouri  formed  her  Constitution,  in  conformity  with  the  act  of 
the  sixth  of  March ;  that  it  was  presented  to  Congress  at  the  next  session  ; 
that  the  Senate  passed  a  joint  resolution  declaring  her  to  be  one  of  the  States 
of  the  Union,  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  original  States;  and  that  the 
House  of  Representatives  rejected  it,  and  refused  to  allow  her  to  come  into 
the  Union,  because  her  Constitution  did  not  prohibit  slavery. 

These  facts  created  the  necessity  for  a  new  compromise,  the  old  one 
having  failed  of  its  object,  which  was  to  bring  Missouri  into  the  Union. 


198  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

At  this  period  in  the  order  of  events  —  in  February,  1821,  when  the  ex 
citement  was  almost  beyond  restraint,  and  a  great  fundamental  principle, 
involving  the  right  of  the  people  of  the  new  States  to  regulate  their  own 
domestic  institutions,  was  dividing  the  Union  into  two  great  hostile  par 
ties  —  Henry  Clay,  of  Kentucky,  came  forward  with  a  new  compromise, 
which  had  the  effect  to  change  the  issue,  and  make  the  result  of  the  con 
troversy  turn  upon  a  different  point.  He  brought  in  a  resolution  for  the 
admission  of  Missouri  into  the  Union,  not  in  pursuance  of  the  act  of  1820, 
not  in  obedience  to  the  understanding  when  it  was  adopted,  and  not  with 
her  Constitution  as  it  had  been  formed  in  conformity  with  that  act,  but 
he  proposed  to  admit  Missouri  into  the  Union  upon  a  "fundamental  con 
dition,"  which  condition  was  to  be  in  the  nature  of  a  solemn  compact 
between  the  United  States  on  the  one  part  and  the  State  of  Missouri  on 
the  other  part,  and  to  which  "fundamental  condition  "  the  State  of  Missouri 
was  required  to  declare  her  assent  in  the  form  of  "a  solemn  public  act." 
This  joint  resolution  passed,  and  was  approved  March  2,  1821,  and  is 
known  as  Mr.  Clay's  Missouri  compromise,  in  contradistinction  to  that 
of  1820,  which  was  introduced  into  the  Senate  by  Mr.  Thomas  of  Illinois. 
In  the  month  of  June,  1821,  the  Legislature  of  Missouri  assembled  and 
passed  the  "solemn  public  act,"  and  furnished  an  authenticated  copy 
thereof  to  the  President  of  the  United  States,  in  compliance  with  Mr. 
Clay's  compromise,  or  joint  resolution.  On  August  10,  1821,  James  Mon 
roe,  President  of  the  United  States,  issued  his  proclamation,  in  which, 
after  reciting  the  fact  that  on  the  second  of  March,  1821,  Congress  had 
passed  a  joint  resolution  "providing  for  the  admission  of  the  State  of 
Missouri  into  the  Union,  on  a  certain  condition";  and  that  the  general 
assembly  of  Missouri,  on  the  twenty-sixth  of  June,  having,  "by  a  solemn 
public  act,  declared  the  assent  of  said  State  of  Missouri  to  the  fundamental 
condition  contained  in  said  joint  resolution,"  and  having  furnished  him 
with  an  authenticated  copy  thereof,  he,  "in  pursuance  of  the  resolution  of 
Congress  aforesaid,"  declared  the  admission  of  Missouri  to  be  complete. 

I  do  not  deem  it  necessary  to  discuss  the  question  whether  the  conditions 
upon  which  Missouri  was  admitted  were  wise  or  unwise.  It  is  sufficient 
for  my  present  purpose  to  remark  that  the  "fundamental  condition" 
of  her  admission  related  to  certain  clauses  in  the  Constitution  of  Missouri 
in  respect  to  the  migration  of  free  negroes  into  that  State ;  clauses  similar 
to  those  now  in  force  in  the  Constitutions  of  Illinois  and  Indiana,  and 
perhaps  other  States;  clauses  similar  to  the  provisions  of  law  in  force  at 
that  time  in  many  of  the  old  States  of  the  Union;  and,  I  will  add,  clauses 
which,  in  my  opinion,  Missouri  had  a  right  to  adopt  under  the  Constitu 
tion  of  the  United  States.  It  is  no  answer  to  this  position  to  say,  that 
those  clauses  in  the  Constitution  of  Missouri  were  in  violation  of  the  Con 
stitution.  If  they  did  conflict  with  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
they  were  void;  if  they  were  not  in  conflict,  Missouri  had  a  right  to  put 
them  there,  and  to  pass  all  laws  necessary  to  carry  them  into  effect. 
Whether  such  conflict  did  exist  is  a  question  which,  by  the  Constitution, 
can  only  be  determined  authoritatively  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 


APPENDIX  199 

United  States.  Congress  is  not  the  appropriate  and  competent  tribunal 
to  adjudicate  and  determine  questions  of  conflict  between  the  Consti 
tution  of  a  State  and  that  of  the  United  States.  Had  Missouri  been 
admitted  without  any  condition  or  restriction,  she  would  have  had  an 
opportunity  of  vindicating  her  Constitution  and  rights  in  the  Supreme 
Court  —  the  tribunal  created  by  the  Constitution  for  that  purpose. 

By  the  condition  imposed  on  Missouri,  Congress  not  only  deprived  that 
State  of  a  right  which  she  believed  she  possessed  under  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  but  denied  her  the  privilege  of  vindicating  that 
right  in  the  appropriate  and  constitutional  tribunals,  by  compelling  her, 
"by  a  solemn  public  act,"  to  give  an  irrevocable  pledge  never  to  exercise 
or  claim  the  right.  Therefore  Missouri  came  under  a  humiliating  condi 
tion  —  a  condition  not  imposed  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
and  which  destroys  the  principle  of  equality  which  should  exist,  and  by 
the  Constitution  does  exist,  between  all  the  States  of  this  Union.  This 
inequality  resulted  from  Mr.  Clay's  compromise  of  1821,  and  is  the  principle 
upon  which  that  compromise  was  constructed.  I  own  that  the  act  is 
couched  in  general  terms  and  vague  phrases,  and  therefore  may  possibly 
be  so  construed  as  not  to  deprive  the  State  of  any  right  she  might  possess 
under  the  Constitution.  Upon  that  point  I  wish  only  to  say,  that  such 
a  construction  makes  the  "fundamental  condition"  void,  while  the  oppo 
site  construction  would  demonstrate  it  to  be  unconstitutional.  I  have 
before  me  the  "solemn  public  act"  of  Missouri  to  this  fundamental  con 
dition.  Whoever  will  take  the  trouble  to  read  it  will  find  it  the  richest 
specimen  of  irony  and  sarcasm  that  has  ever  been  incorporated  into  a 
solemn  public  act. 

Mr.  President,  it  was  a  mortifying  reflection  to  me,  as  a  Northern  man, 
that  we  had  not  been  able,  in  consequence  of  the  abolition  excitement  at 
the  time,  to  avoid  the  appearance  of  bad  faith  in  the  observance  of  legis 
lation,  which  has  been  denominated  a  compromise.  There  were  a  few 
men  then,  as  there  are  now,  who  had  the  moral  courage  to  perform  their 
duty  to  the  country  and  the  Constitution,  regardless  of  consequences 
personal  to  themselves.  There  were  ten  Northern  men  who  dared  to 
perform  their  duty  by  voting  to  admit  Missouri  into  the  Union  on  an  equal 
footing  with  the  original  States,  and  with  no  other  restriction  than  that 
imposed  by  the  Constitution.  I  am  aware  that  they  were  abused  and 
denounced  as  we  are  now;  that  they  were  branded  as  dough-faces,  traitors 
to  freedom,  and  to  the  section  of  the  country  whence  they  come. 

Mr.  Geyer.  They  honored  Mr.  Lanman,  of  Connecticut,  by  burning  him 
in  effigy. 

Mr.  Douglas.  Yes,  sir;  these  Abolitionists  honored  Mr.  Lanman  in  Con 
necticut  just  as  they  are  honoring  me  in  Boston,  and  other  places,  by 
burning  me  in  effigy. 

Mr.  Cass.     It  will  do  you  no  harm. 

Mr.  Douglas.  Well,  sir,  I  know  it  will  not;  but  why  this  burning  in 
effigy?  It  is  the  legitimate  consequences  of  the  address  which  was  sent 
forth  to  the  world  by  certain  senators  whom  I  denominated,  on  a  former 


200  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 

occasion,  as  the  Abolition  confederates.  The  senator  from  Ohio  presented 
here  the  other  day  a  resolution  —  he  says  unintentionally,  and  I  take  it 
so  —  declaring  that  every  senator  who  advocated  this  bill  was  a  traitor 
to  his  country,  to  humanity,  and  to  God ;  and  even  he  seemed  to  be  shocked 
at  the  results  of  his  own  advice  when  it  was  exposed.  Yet  he  did  not  seem 
to  know  that  it  was,  in  substance,  what  he  had  advised  in  his  address, 
over  his  own  signature,  when  he  called  upon  the  people  to  assemble  in 
public  meetings  and  thunder  forth  their  indignation  as  the  criminal  be 
trayal  of  precious  rights;  when  he  appealed  to  ministers  of  the  gospel  to 
desecrate  their  holy  calling,  and  attempted  to  inflame  passions,  and  fanat 
icism,  and  prejudice  against  senators  who  would  not  consider  themselves 
very  highly  complimented  by  being  called  his  equals.  And  yet,  when  the 
natural  consequences  of  his  own  action  and  advice  come  back  upon  him, 
and  he  presents  them  here,  and  is  called  to  an  account  for  the  indecency 
of  the  act,  he  professes  his  profound  regret  and  surprise  that  anything 
should  have  occurred  which  could  possibly  be  deemed  unkind  or  disre 
spectful  to  any  member  of  this  body  ! 

Mr.  Sumner.  I  rise  merely  to  correct  the  senator  in  a  statement  in  re 
gard  to  myself,  to  the  effect  that  I  had  said  that  Missouri  came  into  the 
Union  under  the  act  of  1820,  instead  of  the  act  of  1821.  I  forbore  to 
designate  any  particular  act  under  which  Missouri  came  into  the  Union, 
but  simply  asserted,  as  the  result  of  the  long  controversy  with  regard  to 
her  admission,  and  as  the  end  of  the  whole  transaction,  that  she  was  re 
ceived  as  a  slave  State ;  and  that  on  being  so  received,  whether  sooner  or 
later,  whether  under  the  act  of  1820  or  1821,  the  obligations  of  the  com 
pact  were  fixed  —  irrevocably  fixed  —  so  far  as  the  South  is  concerned. 

Mr.  Douglas.  The  senator's  explanation  does  not  help  him  at  all.  He 
says  he  did  not  state  under  what  act  Missouri  came  in;  but  he  did  say, 
as  I  understood  him,  that  the  act  of  1820  was  a  compact,  and  that,  accord 
ing  to  that  compact,  Missouri  was  to  come  in  with  slavery,  provided 
slavery  should  be  prohibited  in  certain  Territories,  and  did  come  in  in 
pursuance  of  the  compact.  He  now  uses  the  word  "compact."  To  what 
compact  does  he  allude  ?  Is  it  not  to  the  act  of  1820  ?  If  he  did  not,  what 
becomes  of  his  conclusion  that  the  eighth  section  of  that  act  is  irrepeal- 
able?  He  will  not  venture  to  deny  that  his  reference  was  to  the  act  of 
1820.  Did  he  refer  to  the  joint  resolution  of  1821,  under  which  Missouri 
was  admitted?  If  so,  we  do  not  propose  to  repeal  it.  We  admit  that  it 
was  a  compact,  and  that  its  obligations  are  irrevocably  fixed.  But  that 
joint  resolution  does  not  prohibit  slavery  in  the  Territories.  The  Nebraska 
Bill  does  not  propose  to  repeal  it,  or  impair  its  obligation  in  any  way. 
Then,  sir,  why  not  take  back  your  correction,  and  admit  that  you  did  mean 
the  act  of  1820,  when  you  spoke  of  irrevocable  obligations  and  compacts? 
Assuming,  then,  that  the  senator  meant  what  he  is  now  unwilling  either 
to  admit  or  deny,  even  while  professing  to  correct  me,  that  Missouri  came 
in  under  the  act  of  1820,  I  aver  that  I  have  proven  that  she  did  not  come 
into  the  Union  under  that  act.  I  have  proven  that  she  was  refused  admis 
sion  under  that  alleged  compact.  I  have,  therefore,  proven  incontestably 


APPENDIX  201 

that  the  material  statement  upon  which  his  argument  rests  is  wholly 
without  foundation,  and  unequivocally  contradicted  by  the  record. 

Sir,  I  believe  I  may  say  the  same  of  every  speech  which  has  been  made 
against  the  bill,  upon  the  ground  that  it  impaired  the  obligation  of  com 
pacts.  There  has  not  been  an  argument  against  the  measure,  every  word 
of  which  in  regard  to  the  faith  of  compacts  is  not  contradicted  by  the 
public  records.  What  I  complain  of  is  this:  The  people  may  think  that 
a  senator,  having  the  laws  and  journals  before  him,  to  which  he  could 
refer,  would  not  make  a  statement  in  contravention  of  those  records. 
They  make  the  people  believe  these  things,  and  cause  them  to  do  great 
injustice  to  others,  under  the  delusion  that  they  have  been  wronged  and 
their  feelings  outraged.  Sir,  this  address  did  for  a  time  mislead  the  whole 
country.  It  made  the  Legislature  of  New  York  believe  that  the  act  of 
1820  was  a  compact  which  it  would  be  disgraceful  to  violate ;  and,  acting 
under  that  delusion,  they  framed  a  series  of  resolutions,  which,  if  true  and 
just,  convict  that  State  of  an  act  of  perfidy  and  treachery  unparalleled  in 
the  history  of  free  Governments.  You  see,  therefore,  the  consequences  of 
these  misstatements.  You  degrade  your  own  State,  and  induce  the  peo 
ple,  under  the  impression  that  they  have  been  injured,  to  get  up  a  violent 
crusade  against  those  whose  fidelity  and  truthfulness  will  in  the  end  com 
mand  their  respect  and  admiration.  In  consequence  of  arousing  passions 
and  prejudices,  I  am  now  to  be  found  in  effigy,  hanging  by  the  neck,  in 
all  the  towns  where  you  have  the  influence  to  produce  such  a  result.  In 
all  these  excesses,  the  people  are  yielding  to  an  honest  impulse,  under 
the  impression  that  a  grievous  wrong  has  been  perpetrated.  You  have 
had  your  day  of  triumph.  You  have  succeeded  in  directing  upon  the  heads 
of  others  a  torrent  of  insult  and  calumny  from  which  even  you  shrink 
with  horror,  when  the  fact  is  exposed  that  you  have  become  the  conduits 
for  conveying  it  into  this  hall.  In  your  State,  sir  [addressing  himself  to 
Mr.  Chase],  I  find  that  I  am  burnt  in  effigy  in  your  Abolition  towns.  All 
this  is  done  because  I  have  proposed,  as  it  is  said,  to  violate  a  compact ! 
Now,  what  will  those  people  think  of  you  when  they  find  out  that  you  have 
stimulated  them  to  those  acts,  which  are  disgraceful  to  your  State,  dis 
graceful  to  your  party,  and  disgraceful  to  your  cause,  under  a  misrepre 
sentation  of  the  facts,  which  misrepresentation  you  ought  to  have  been 
aware  of,  and  should  never  have  been  made  ? 

Mr.  Chase.    Will  the  senator  from  Illinois  permit  me  to  say  a  few  words? 

Mr.  Douglas.     Certainly. 

Mr.  Chase.  Mr.  President,  I  certainly  regret  that  anything  has  oc 
curred  in  my  State  which  should  be  otherwise  than  in  accordance  with  the 
disposition  which  I  trust  I  have  ever  manifested  to  treat  the  senator  from 
Illinois  with  entire  courtesy.  I  do  not  wish,  however,  to  be  understood 
here,  or  elsewhere,  as  retracting  any  statement  which  I  have  made,  or 
being  unwilling  to  reassert  that  statement  when  it  is  directly  impeached. 
I  regard  the  admission  of  Missouri,  and  the  facts  of  the  transaction  con 
nected  with  it  as  constituting  a  compact  between  the  two  sections  of  the 
country,  a  part  of  which  was  fulfilled  in  the  admission  of  Missouri,  another 


202  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 

part  in  the  admission  of  Arkansas,  and  other  parts  of  which  have  been 
fulfilled  in  the  admission  of  Iowa,  and  the  organization  of  Minnesota,  but 
which  yet  remains  to  be  fulfilled  in  respect  to  the  Territory  of  Nebraska, 
and  which,  in  my  judgment,  will  be  violated  by  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri 
prohibition.  That  is  my  judgment.  I  have  no  quarrel  with  senators  who 
differ  with  me;  but  upon  the  whole  facts  of  the  transaction,  however,  I 
have  not  changed  my  opinion  at  all,  in  consequence  of  what  has  been  said 
by  the  honorable  senator  from  Illinois.  I  say  that  the  facts  of  the  transac 
tion,  taken  together,  and  as  understood  by  the  country  for  more  than 
thirty  years,  constitute  a  compact  binding  in  moral  force;  though,  as  I 
have  always  said,  being  embodied  in  a  legislative  act,  it  may  be  repealed 
by  Congress,  if  Congress  see  fit. 

Mr.  Douglas.  Mr.  President,  I  am  sorry  the  senator  from  Ohio  has 
repeated  the  statement  that  Missouri  came  in  under  the  compact  which 
he  says  was  made  by  the  act  of  1820.  How  many  times  have  I  to  disprove 
the  statement?  Does  not  the  vote  to  which  I  have  referred  show  that 
such  was  not  the  case  ?  Does  not  the  fact  that  there  was  a  necessity  for  a 
new  compromise  show  it?  Have  I  not  proved  it  three  times  over?  and 
is  it  possible  that  the  senator  from  Ohio  will  repeat  it  in  the  face  of  the 
record,  with  the  vote  staring  him  in  the  face,  and  with  the  evidence  which 
I  have  produced?  Does  he  suppose  that  he  can  make  his  own  people  be 
lieve  that  his  statement  ought  to  be  credited  in  opposition  to  the  solemn 
record  ?  I  am  amazed  that  the  senator  should  repeat  the  statement  again 
unsustained  by  the  fact,  by  the  record,  and  by  the  evidence,  and  over 
whelmed  by  the  whole  current  and  weight  of  the  testimony  which  I  have 
produced. 

The  senator  says,  also,  that  he  never  intended  to  do  me  injustice,  and 
he  is  sorry  that  the  people  of  his  State  have  acted  in  the  manner  to  which 
I  have  referred.  Sir,  did  he  not  say,  in  the  same  document  to  which  I 
have  already  alluded,  that  I  was  engaged,  with  others,  in  "a  criminal  be 
trayal  of  precious  rights,"  in  an  ''atrocious  plot"?  Did  he  not  say  that 
I  and  others  were  guilty  of  "meditated  bad  faith"?  Are  not  these  his 
exact  words?  Did  he  not  say  that  "servile  demagogues"  might  make  the 
people  believe  certain  things,  or  attempt  to  do  so?  Did  he  not  say  every 
thing  calculated  to  produce  and  bring  upon  my  head  all  the  insults  to 
which  I  have  been  subjected,  publicly  and  privately  —  not  even  except 
ing  the  insulting  letters  which  I  have  received  from  his  constituents,  re 
joicing  at  my  domestic  bereavements,  and  praying  that  other  and  similar 
calamities  may  befall  me  ?  All  these  have  resulted  from  that  address.  I 
expected  such  consequences  when  I  first  saw  it.  In  it  he  called  upon  the 
preachers  of  the  gospel  to  prostitute  the  sacred  desk  in  stimulating  ex 
cesses  ;  and  then,  for  fear  that  the  people  would  not  know  who  it  was  that 
was  to  be  insulted  and  calumniated,  he  told  them  in  a  postscript,  that  Mr. 
Douglas  was  the  author  of  all  this  iniquity,  and  that  they  ought  not  to 
allow  their  rights  to  be  made  the  hazard  of  a  Presidential  game !  After 
having  used  such  language,  he  says  he  meant  no  disrespect  —  he  meant 
nothing  unkind !  He  was  amazed  that  I  said  in  my  opening  speech  that 


APPENDIX  203 

there  was  anything  offensive  in  this  address;  and  he  could  not  suffer 
himself  to  use  harsh  epithets,  or  to  impugn  a  gentleman's  motives !  No, 
not  he!  After  having  deliberately  written  all  these  insults,  impugning 
motive  and  character,  and  calling  upon  our  holy  religion  to  sanctify  the 
calumny,  he  could  not  think  of  losing  his  dignity  by  bandying  epithets, 
or  using  harsh  and  disrespectful  terms  1 

Mr.  President,  I  expected  all  that  has  occurred,  and  more  than  has 
come,  as  the  legitimate  result  of  that  address.  The  things  to  which  I  re 
ferred  are  the  natural  consequences  of  it.  The  only  revenge  I  seek  is  to 
expose  the  authors,  and  leave  them  to  bear,  as  best  they  may,  the  just 
indignation  of  an  honest  community,  when  the  people  discover  how  their 
sympathies  and  feelings  have  been  outraged  by  making  them  the  instru 
ments  in  performing  such  desperate  acts. 

Sir,  even  in  Boston  I  have  been  hung  in  effigy.  I  may  say  that  I  ex 
pected  it  to  occur  even  there,  for  the  senator  from  Massachusetts  lives 
there.  He  signed  his  name  to  that  address ;  and  for  fear  the  Boston  Abo 
litionists  would  not  know  that  it  was  he,  he  signed  it  "Charles  Sumner, 
senator  from  Massachusetts."  The  first  outrage  was  in  Ohio,  where  the 
address  was  circulated  under  the  signature  of  "Salmon  P.  Chase,  senator 
from  Ohio."  The  next  came  from  Boston  —  the  same  Boston,  sir,  which, 
under  the  direction  of  the  same  leaders,  closed  Fanueil  Hall  to  the  im 
mortal  Webster  in  1850,  because  of  his  support  of  the  compromise  measures 
of  that  year,  which  all  now  confess  have  restored  peace  and  harmony  to 
a  distracted  country.  Yes,  sir,  even  Boston,  so  glorious  in  her  early  his 
tory,  —  Boston,  around  whose  name  so  many  historical  associations  cling, 
to  gratify  the  heart  and  exalt  the  pride  of  every  American,  —  could  be  led 
astray  by  Abolition  misrepresentations  so  far  as  to  deny  a  hearing  to  her 
own  great  man,  who  had  shed  so  much  glory  upon  Massachusetts  and  her 
metropolis !  I  know  that  Boston  now  feels  humiliated  and  degraded  by 
the  act.  And,  sir  [addressing  himself  to  Mr.  Sumner],  you  will  remember 
that  when  you  came  into  the  Senate,  and  sought  an  opportunity  to  put 
forth  your  Abolition  incendiarism,  you  appealed  to  our  sense  of  justice  by 
the  sentiment,  "Strike,  but  hear  me  first."  But  when  Mr.  Webster  went 
back  in  1850  to  speak  to  his  constituents  in  his  own  self-defence,  to  tell 
the  truth,  and  to  expose  his  slanderers,  you  would  not  hear  him,  but  you 
struck  first! 

Again,  sir,  even  Boston,  with  her  Fanueil  Hall  consecrated  to  liberty, 
was  so  far  led  astray  by  Abolitionism  that  when  one  of  her  gallant  sons, 
gallant  by  his  own  glorious  deeds,  inheriting  a  heroic  revolutionary  name, 
had  given  his  life  to  his  country  upon  the  bloody  field  of  Buena  Vista,  and 
when  his  remains  were  brought  home,  even  that  Boston,  under  Abolition 
guidance  and  Abolition  preaching,  denied  him  a  decent  burial,  because  he 
lost  his  life  in  vindicating  his  country's  honor  upon  the  Southern  frontier ! 
Even  the  name  of  Lincoln  and  the  deeds  of  Lincoln  could  not  secure  for 
him  a  decent  interment,  because  Abolitionism  follows  a  patriot  beyond 
the  grave. 

Mr.  President,  with  these  facts  before  me,  how  could  I  hope  to  escape 


204  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 

the  fate  which  had  followed  these  great  and  good  men?  While  I  had  no 
right  to  hope  that  I  might  be  honored  as  they  had  been  under  Abolition 
auspices,  have  I  not  a  right  to  be  proud  of  the  distinction  and  the  asso 
ciation?  Mr.  President,  I  regret  these  digressions.  I  have  not  been  able 
to  follow  the  line  of  argument  which  I  had  marked  out  for  myself,  because 
of  the  many  interruptions.  I  do  not  complain  of  them.  It  is  fair  that 
gentlemen  should  make  them,  inasmuch  as  they  have  not  the  opportunity 
of  replying;  hence  I  have  yielded  the  floor,  and  propose  to  do  so  cheer 
fully  whenever  any  senator  intimates  that  justice  to  him  or  his  position 
requires  him  to  say  anything  in  reply. 

Returning  to  the  point  from  which  I  was  diverted : 

I  think  I  have  shown  that  if  the  act  of  1820,  called  the  Missouri  Com 
promise,  was  a  compact,  it  was  violated  and  repudiated  by  a  solemn  vote 
of  the  House  of  Representatives  in  1821,  within  eleven  months  after  it 
was  adopted.  It  was  repudiated  by  the  North  by  a  majority  vote,  and 
that  repudiation  was  so  complete  and  successful  as  to  compel  Missouri  to 
make  a  new  compromise,  and  she  was  brought  into  the  Union  under  the 
new  compromise  of  1821,  and  not  under  the  act  of  1820.  This  reminds 
me  of  another  point  made  in  nearly  all  the  speeches  against  this  bill,  and, 
if  I  recollect  right,  was  alluded  to  in  the  abolition  manifesto;  to  which, 
I  regret  to  say,  I  had  occasion  to  refer  so  often.  I  refer  to  the  significant 
hint  that  Mr.  Clay  was  dead  before  any  one  dared  to  bring  forward  a  propo 
sition  to  undo  the  greatest  work  of  his  hands.  The  senator  from  New 
York  [Mr.  Seward]  has  seized  upon  this  insinuation  and  elaborated  it, 
perhaps  more  fully  than  his  compeers;  and  now  the  Abolition  press  sud 
denly,  and,  as  if  by  miraculous  conversion,  teems  with  eulogies  upon  Mr. 
Clay  and  his  Missouri  Compromise  of  1820. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  does  not  each  of  these  senators  know  that  Mr. 
Clay  was  not  the  author  of  the  act  of  1820?  Do  they  not  know  that  he 
disclaimed  it  in  1850  in  this  body?  Do  they  not  know  that  the  Missouri 
restriction  did  not  originate  in  the  House  of  which  he  was  a  member?  Do 
they  not  know  that  Mr.  Clay  never  came  into  Missouri  controversy  as  a 
compromiser  until  after  the  compromise  of  1820  was  repudiated,  and  it 
became  necessary  to  make  another?  I  dislike  to  be  compelled  to  repeat 
what  I  have  conclusively  proven,  that  the  compromise  which  Mr.  Clay 
effected  was  the  act  of  1821,  under  which  Missouri  came  into  the  Union, 
and  not  the  act  of  1820.  Mr.  Clay  made  that  compromise  after  you  had 
repudiated  the  first  one.  How,  then,  dare  you  call  upon  the  spirit  of  that 
great  and  gallant  statesman  to  sanction  your  charge  of  bad  faith  against 
the  South  on  this  question? 

Now,  Mr.  President,  as  I  have  been  doing  justice  to  Mr.  Clay  on  this 
question,  perhaps  I  may  as  well  do  justice  to  another  great  man,  who 
was  associated  with  him  in  carrying  through  the  great  measures  of  1850 
which  mortified  the  senator  from  New  York  so  much,  because  they  defeated 
his  purpose  of  carrying  on  the  agitation.  I  allude  to  Mr.  Webster.  The 
authority  of  his  great  name  has  been  quoted  for  the  purpose  of  proving 
that  he  regarded  the  Missouri  act  as  a  compact  —  an  irrepealable  compact. 


PRESIDENT  JAMES  K.   POLK 


APPENDIX  205 

Evidently  the  distinguished  senator  from  Massachusetts  [Mr.  Everett] 
supposed  he  was  doing  Mr.  Webster  entire  justice  when  he  quoted  the 
passage  which  he  read  from  Mr.  Webster's  speech  of  the  seventh  of  March, 
1850,  when  he  said  that  he  stood  upon  the  position  that  every  part  of  the 
American  continent  was  fixed  for  freedom  or  for  slavery  by  irrepealable 
law. 

The  senator  says  that  by  the  expression  "irrepealable  law,"  Mr.  Webster 
meant  to  include  the  compromise  of  1820.  Now,  I  will  show  that  that 
was  not  Mr.  Webster's  meaning  —  that  he  was  never  guilty  of  the  mis 
take  of  saying  that  the  Missouri  act  of  1820  was  an  irrepealable  law.  Mr. 
Webster  said  in  that  speech,  that  every  foot  of  territory  in  the  United 
States  was  fixed  as  to  its  character  for  freedom  or  slavery  by  an  irrepeal 
able  law.  He  then  inquired  if  it  was  not  so  in  regard  to  Texas.  He  went 
on  to  prove  that  it  was;  because,  he  said,  there  was  a  compact  in  express 
terms  between  Texas  and  the  United  States.  He  said  the  parties  were 
capable  of  contracting,  and  that  there  was  a  valuable  consideration;  and 
hence,  he  contended,  that  in  that  case  there  was  a  contract  binding  in 
honor,  and  morals,  and  law;  and  that  it  was  irrepealable  without  a  breach 
of  faith. 

He  went  on  to  say : 

"Now,  as  to  California  and  New  Mexico,  I  hold  slavery  to  be  excluded 
from  those  Territories  by  a  law  even  superior  to  that  which  admits  and 
sanctions  it  in  Texas  —  I  mean  the  law  of  nature,  of  physical  geography, 
the  law  of  the  formation  of  the  earth." 

That  was  the  irrepealable  law  which  he  said  prohibited  slavery  in  the 
territories  of  Utah  and  New  Mexico.  He  next  went  on  to  speak  of  the 
prohibition  of  slavery  in  Oregon,  and  he  said  it  was  an  "entirely  useless, 
and  in  that  connection,  senseless  proviso." 

He  went  further,  and  said : 

"That  the  whole  territory  of  the  States  in  the  United  States,  or  in  the 
newly-acquired  territory  of  the  United  States,  has  a  fixed  and  settled 
character,  now  fixed  and  settled  by  law,  which  cannot  be  repealed  in  the 
case  of  Texas  without  a  violation  of  public  faith,  and  cannot  be  repealed 
by  any  human  power  in  regard  to  California  or  New  Mexico;  that,  under 
one  or  other  of  these  laws,  every  foot  of  territory  in  the  States,  or  in  the 
Territories,  has  now  received  a  fixed  and  decided  character." 

What  irrepealable  laws?  One  or  the  other  of  those  which  he  had  stated. 
One  was  the  Texas  compact,  the  other  the  law  of  nature  and  physical 
geography;  and  he  contends  that  one  or  the  other  fixed  the  character  of 
the  whole  American  continent  for  freedom  or  for  slavery.  He  never 
alluded  to  the  Missouri  Compromise,  unless  it  was  by  the  allusion  to  the 
Wilmot  Proviso  in  the  Oregon  bill,  and  there  he  said  it  was  a  useless, 
and,  in  that  connection,  senseless  thing.  Why  was  it  a  useless  and  a  sense 
less  thing?  Because  it  was  reenacting  the  law  of  God;  because  slavery 
had  already  been  prohibited  by  physical  geography.  Sir,  that  was  the 
meaning  of  Mr.  Webster's  speech.  My  distinguished  friend  from  Massa 
chusetts  [Mr.  Everett],  when  he  reads  the  speech  again,  will  be  utterly 


206  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

amazed  to  see  how  he  fell  into  such  an  egregious  error  as  to  suppose  that 
Mr.  Webster  had  so  far  fallen  from  his  high  position  as  to  say  that  the 
Missouri  act  of  1820  was  an  irrepealable  law. 

Mr.  President,  I  am  sorry  that  I  have  taken  up  so  much  time;  but  I 
must  notice  one  or  two  points  more.  So  much  has  been  said  about  the 
Missouri  Compromise  act,  and  about  a  faithful  compliance  with  it  by  the 
North,  that  I  must  follow  that  matter  a  little  further.  The  senator  from 
Ohio  [Mr.  Wade]  has  referred,  to-night,  to  the  fact  that  I  went  for  carry 
ing  out  the  Missouri  Compromise  in  the  Texas  resolutions  of  1845,  and  in 
1848,  on  several  occasions ;  and  he  actually  proved  that  I  never  abandoned 
it  until  1850.  He  need  not  have  taken  the  pains  to  prove  that  fact;  for 
he  got  all  his  information  on  the  subject  from  my  opening  speech  upon 
this  bill.  I  told  you  then  that  I  was  willing,  as  a  Northern  man,  in  1845, 
when  the  Texas  question  arose,  to  carry  the  Missouri  Compromise  line 
through  that  State,  and  in  1848  I  offered  it  as  an  amendment  to  the  Oregon 
bill.  Although  I  did  not  like  the  principle  involved  in  that  act,  yet  I  was 
willing,  for  the  sake  of  harmony,  to  extend  it  to  the  Pacific,  and  abide  by 
it  in  good  faith,  in  order  to  avoid  the  slavery  agitation.  The  Missouri 
Compromise  was  defeated  then  by  the  same  class  of  politicians  who  are 
now  combined  in  opposition  to  the  Nebraska  bill.  It  was  because  we  were 
unable  to  carry  out  that  compromise,  that  a  necessity  existed  for  making 
a  new  one  in  1850.  And  then  we  established  this  great  principle  of  self- 
government  which  lies  at  the  foundation  of  all  our  institutions.  What 
does  his  charge  amount  to?  He  charges  it,  as  a  matter  of  offence,  that  I 
struggled  in  1845  and  in  1848  to  observe  good  faith-,  and  he  and  his  asso 
ciates  defeated  my  purpose  and  deprived  me  of  the  ability  to  carry  out 
what  he  now  says  is  the  plighted  faith  of  the  nation. 

Mr.  Wade.  I  did  not  charge  the  senator  with  anything  except  with 
making  a  very  excellent  argument  on  my  side  of  the  question,  and  I  wished 
he  would  make  it  again  to-night.  That  was  all. 

Mr.  Douglas.  What  was  the  argument  which  I  made?  A  Southern 
senator  had  complained  that  the  Missouri  Compromise  was  a  matter  of 
injustice  to  the  South.  I  told  him  he  ought  not  to  complain  of  that  when 
his  Southern  friends  were  here  proposing  to  accept  it;  and  if  we  could 
carry  it  out,  he  had  no  right  to  make  such  a  complaint.  I  was  anxious  to 
carry  it  out.  It  would  not  have  done  for  a  Northern  man  who  was  opposed 
to  the  measure,  and  unwilling  to  abide  it,  to  take  that  position.  It  would 
not  have  become  the  senator  from  Ohio,  who  then  denounced  the  very 
measure  which  he  now  calls  a  sacred  compact,  to  take  that  position.  But, 
as  one  who  has  always  been  in  favor  of  carrying  it  out,  it  was  legitimate 
and  proper  that  I  should  make  that  argument  in  reply. 

Sir,  as  I  have  said,  the  South  was  willing  to  agree  to  the  Missouri  Com-i 
promise  in  1848.  When  it  was  proposed  by  me  to  the  Oregon  bill,  as  an| 
amendment,  to  extend  that  line  to  the  Pacific,  the  South  agreed  to  it.! 
The  Senate  adopted  that  proposition,  and  the  House  voted  it  down.  In 
1850,  after  the  Omnibus  bill  had  broken  down,  and  we  proceeded  to  pass 


APPENDIX  207 

the  compromise  measures  separately,  I  proposed,  when  the  Utah  bill 
was  under  discussion,  to  make  a  slight  variation  of  the  boundary  of  that 
Territory,  so  as  to  include  the  Mormon  settlements,  and  not  with  refer 
ence  to  any  other  question;  and  it  was  suggested  that  we  should  take 
the  line  of  36°  30'.  That  would  have  accomplished  the  local  objects  of 
the  amendment  very  well.  But  when  I  proposed  it,  what  did  these  Free- 
soilers  say?  What  did  the  senator  from  New  Hampshire  [Mr.  Hale], 
who  was  then  their  leader  in  this  body,  say  ?  Here  are  his  words : 

"I  wish  to  say  a  word  as  a  reason  why  I  shall  vote  against  the  amend 
ment.  I  shall  vote  against  36°  30'  because  I  think  there  is  an  implication  in 
it.  I  will  vote  for  37°  or  36°  either,  just  as  it  is  convenient;  but  it  is  idle 
to  shut  our  eyes  to  the  fact  that  here  is  an  attempt  in  this  bill  —  I  will 
not  say  it  is  the  intention  of  the  mover  —  to  pledge  this  Senate  and  Con 
gress  to  the  imaginary  line  of  36°  30',  because  there  are  some  historical 
recollections  connected  with  it  in  regard  to  this  controversy  about  slavery, 
I  will  content  myself  with  saying  that  I  never  will,  by  vote  or  speech, 
admit  or  submit  to  anything  that  may  bind  the  action  of  our  legislation 
here  to  make  the  parallel  of  36°  30'  the  boundary  line  between  slave 
and  free  territory.  And  when  I  say  that,  I  explain  the  reason  why  I 
go  against  the  amendment." 

These  remarks  of  Mr.  Hale  were  not  made  on  a  proposition  to  extend  the 
Missouri  Compromise  line  to  the  Pacific,  but  on  a  proposition  to  fix  36°  30' 
as  the  Southern  boundary  line  of  Utah,  for  local  reasons.  He  was  against 
it  because  there  might  be,  as  he  said,  an  implication  growing  out  of  histor 
ical  recollections  in  favor  of  the  imaginary  line  between  slavery  and  free 
dom.  Does  that  look  as  if  his  object  was  to  get  an  implication  in  favor  of 
preserving  sacred  this  line,  in  regard  to  which  gentlemen  now  say  there 
was  a  solemn  compact?  That  proposition  may  illustrate  what  I  wish  to 
say  in  this  connection  upon  a  point  which  has  been  made  by  the  opponents 
of  this  bill  as  to  the  effect  of  an  amendment  inserted  on  the  motion  of 
the  senator  from  Virginia  [Mr.  Mason]  into  the  Texas  boundary  bill.  The 
opponents  of  this  measure  rely  upon  that  amendment  to  show  that  the 
Texas  compact  was  preserved  by  the  acts  of  1850.  I  have  already  shown, 
in  my  former  speech,  that  the  object  of  the  amendment  was  to  guarantee 
to  the  State  of  Texas,  with  her  circumscribed  boundaries,  the  same  number 
of  States  which  she  would  have  had  under  her  larger  boundaries,  and 
with  the  same  right  to  come  in  with  or  without  slavery,  as  they  please. 

We  have  been  told  over  and  over  again  that  there  was  no  such  thing 
intimated  in  debate  as  that  the  country  cut  off  from  Texas  was  to  be 
relieved  from  the  stipulation  of  that  compromise.  This  has  been  asserted 
boldly  and  unconditionally,  as  if  there  could  be  no  doubt  about  it.  The 
senator  from  Georgia  [Mr.  Toombs]  in  his  speech  showed  that,  in  his 
address  to  his  constituents  of  that  State,  he  had  proclaimed  to  the  world 
that  the  object  was  to  establish  a  principle  which  would  allow  the  people 
to  decide  the  question  of  slavery  for  themselves,  North  as  well  as  South 
of  36°  30'.  The  line  of  36°  30'  was  voted  down  as  the  boundary  of  Utah, 
so  that  there  should  not  be  even  an  implication  in  favor  of  an  imaginary 


208  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 

line  to  divide  freedom  and  slavery.  .  .  .  The  debate  goes  upon  the  sup 
position  that  the  effect  was  to  release  the  country  north  of  36°  30'  from 
the  obligation  of  the  prohibition;  and  the  only  question  was  whether  the 
declaration  that  it  should  be  received  into  the  Union  "with  or  without 
slavery  "  should  be  inserted  in  the  Texas  bill  or  the  Territorial  bill. 

Now,  sir,  have  I  not  shown  conclusively  that  it  was  the  understanding 
in  that  debate  that  the  effect  was  to  release  the  country  north  of  36°  30', 
which  formerly  belonged  to  Texas,  from  the  operation  of  that  restriction, 
and  to  provide  that  it  should  come  into  the  Union  with  or  without  slavery, 
as  its  people  should  see  proper? 

Mr.  President,  frequent  reference  has  been  made  in  debate  to  the  ad 
mission  of  Arkansas  as  a  slaveholding  State,  as  furnishing  evidence  that 
the  Abolitionists  and  Free-soilers,  who  have  recently  become  so  much 
enamored  with  the  Missouri  Compromise,  have  always  been  faithful  to 
its  stipulations  and  implications.  I  will  show  that  the  reference  is  un 
fortunate  for  them.  When  Arkansas  applied  for  admission  in  1836,  ob 
jection  was  made  in  consequence  of  the  provisions  of  her  Constitution  in 
respect  to  slavery.  When  the  Abolitionists  and  Free-soilers  of  that  day 
were  arraigned  for  making  that  objection,  upon  the  ground  that  Arkansas 
was  south  of  36°  30',  they  replied  that  the  act  of  1820  was  never  a 
compromise,  much  less  a  compact,  imposing  any  obligation  upon  the  suc 
cessors  of  those  who  passed  the  act  to  pay  any  more  respect  to  its  pro 
visions  than  to  any  other  enactment  of  ordinary  legislation.  I  have  the 
debates  before  me,  but  will  occupy  the  attention  of  the  Senate  only  to 
read  one  or  two  paragraphs.  Mr.  Hand,  of  New  York,  in  opposition  to 
the  admission  of  Arkansas  as  a  slaveholding  State,  said : 

"I  am  aware  it  will  be,  as  it  has  already  been,  contended,  that  by  the 
Missouri  Compromise,  as  it  has  been  preposterously  termed,  Congress  has 
parted  with  its  right  to  prohibit  the  introduction  of  slavery  into  the  terri 
tory  south  of  36°  30'  north  latitude." 

He  acknowledged  that  by  the  Missouri  Compromise,  as  he  said  it  was 
preposterously  termed,  the  North  was  estopped  from  denying  the  right  to 
hold  slaves  south  of  that  line ;  but,  he  added : 

"There  are,  to  my  mind,  insuperable  objections  to  the  soundness  of  that 
proposition." 

Here  they  are : 

"In  the  first  place,  there  was  no  compromise  or  compact  whereby  Con 
gress  surrendered  any  power,  or  yielded  any  jurisdiction;  and,  in  the 
second  place,  if  it  had  done  so,  it  was  a  mere  legislative  act,  that  could 
not  bind  their  successors;  it  would  be  subject  to  a  repeal  at  the  will  of 
any  succeeding  Congress." 

I  give  these  passages  as  specimens  of  the  various  speeches  made  in  op 
position  to  the  admission  of  Arkansas  by  the  same  class  of  politicians  who 
now  oppose  the  Nebraska  bill,  upon  the  ground  that  it  violates  a  solemn 
compact.  So  much  for  the  speeches.  Now  for  the  vote.  The  journal 


APPENDIX  209 

which  I  hold  in  my  hand  shows  that  forty-nine  Northern  votes  were  re 
corded  against  the  admission  of  Arkansas. 

Yet,  sir,  in  utter  disregard  —  and  charity  leads  me  to  hope,  in  profound 
ignorance  —  of  all  these  facts,  gentlemen  are  boasting  that  the  North 
always  observed  the  contract,  never  denied  its  validity,  never  wished  to 
violate  it;  and  they  have  even  referred  to  the  cases  of  the  admission  of 
Missouri  and  Arkansas  as  instances  of  their  good  faith. 

Now,  is  it  possible  that  gentlemen  could  suppose  these  things  could  be 
said  and  distributed  in  their  speeches  without  exposure?  Did  they  pre 
sume  that,  inasmuch  as  their  lives  were  devoted  to  slavery  agitation, 
whatever  they  did  not  know  about  the  history  of  that  question  did  not 
exist?  I  am  willing  to  believe,  I  hope  it  may  be  the  fact,  that  they  were 
profoundly  ignorant  of  all  these  records,  all  these  debates,  all  these  facts, 
which  overthrow  every  position  they  have  assumed.  I  wish  the  senator 
from  Maine  [Mr.  Fessenden],  who  delivered  his  maiden  speech  here  to 
night,  and  who  made  a  great  many  sly  stabs  at  me,  had  informed  himself 
upon  the  subject  before  he  repeated  all  these  groundless  assertions.  I 
can  excuse  him,  for  the  reason  that  he  has  been  here  but  a  few  days,  and, 
having  enlisted  under  the  banner  of  the  Abolition  confederates,  was  un 
wise  and  simple  enough  to  believe  that  what  they  had  published  could 
be  relied  upon  as  stubborn  facts.  He  may  be  an  innocent  victim.  I  hope 
he  can  have  the  excuse  of  not  having  investigated  the  subject.  I  am  will 
ing  to  excuse  him  on  the  ground  that  he  did  not  know  what  he  was  talking 
about,  and  it  is  the  only  excuse  which  I  can  make  for  him.  I  will  say,  how 
ever,  that  I  do  not  think  he  was  required  by  his  loyalty  to  the  Abolitionists 
to  repeat  every  disreputable  insinuation  which  they  made.  Why  did  he 
throw  into  his  speech  that  foul  innuendo  about  "a  Northern  man  with 
Southern  principles,"  and  then  quote  the  senator  from  Massachusetts 
[Mr.  Sumner]  as  his  authority?  Ay,  sir,  I  say  that  foul  insinuation.  Did 
not  the  senator  from  Massachusetts  who  first  dragged  it  into  this  debate 
wish  to  have  the  public  understand  that  I  was  known  as  a  Northern  man 
with  Southern  principles  ?  Was  not  that  the  allusion  ?  If  it  was,  he  availed 
himself  of  a  cant  phrase  in  the  public  mind,  in  violation  of  the  truth  of 
history.  I  know  of  but  one  man  in  this  country  who  ever  made  it  a  boast 
that  he  was  a  Northern  man  with  Southern  principles,  and  he  [turning  to 
Mr.  Sumner]  was  your  candidate  for  the  Presidency  in  1848.  If  his  sarcasm 
was  intended  for  Martin  Van  Buren,  it  involves  a  family  quarrel,  with 
which  I  have  no  disposition  to  interfere.  I  will  only  add  that  I  have  been 
able  to  discover  nothing  in  the  present  position  or  recent  history  of  that 
distinguished  statesman  which  would  lead  me  to  covet  the  sobriquet  by 
which  he  is  known  —  "a  Northern  man  with  Southern  principles." 

Mr.  President,  the  senators  from  Ohio  and  Massachusetts  [Mr.  Chase 
and  Mr.  Sumner]  have  taken  the  liberty  to  impeach  my  motives  in  bring 
ing  forward  this  measure.  I  desire  to  know  by  what  right  they  arraign 
me,  or  by  what  authority  they  impute  to  me  other  and  different  motives 
than  those  which  I  have  assigned.  I  have  shown  from  the  record  that 
I  advocated  and  voted  for  the  same  principles  and  provisions  in  the 

14 


210  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

compromise  acts  of  1850  which  are  embraced  in  this  bill.  I  have  proven 
that  I  put  the  same  construction  upon  those  measures  immediately  after 
their  adoption  that  is  given  in  the  report  which  I  submitted  this  session 
from  the  Committee  on  Territories.  I  have  shown  that  the  Legislature 
of  Illinois  at  its  first  session,  after  those  measures  were  enacted,  passed 
resolutions  approving  them,  and  declaring  that  the  same  great  principles 
of  self-government  should  be  incorporated  into  all  Territorial  organiza 
tions.  Yet,  sir,  in  the  face  of  these  facts,  these  senators  have  the  hardi 
hood  to  declare  that  this  was  all  an  "after-thought"  on  my  part,  conceived 
for  the  first  time  during  the  present  session;  and  that  the  measure  is 
offered  as  a  bid  for  Presidential  votes !  Are  they  incapable  of  conceiv 
ing  that  an  honest  man  can  do  a  right  thing  from  worthy  motives?  I 
must  be  permitted  to  tell  those  senators  that  their  experience  in  seeking 
political  preferment  does  not  furnish  a  safe  rule  by  which  to  judge  the 
character  and  principles  of  other  senators  ! 

I  must  be  permitted  to  tell  the  senator  from  Ohio  that  I  did  not  obtain 
my  seat  in  this  body  either  by  a  corrupt  bargain  or  a  dishonorable  coali 
tion!  I  must  be  permitted  to  remind  the  senator  from  Massachusetts 
that  I  did  not  enter  into  any  combinations  or  arrangements  by  which  my 
character,  my  principles,  and  my  honor  were  set  up  at  public  auction  or 
private  sale,  in  order  to  procure  a  seat  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States ! 
I  did  not  come  into  the  Senate  by  any  such  means. 

Mr.  Chase.  Will  the  senator  from  Illinois  allow  me?  Does  he  say  that 
I  came  into  the  Senate  by  a  corrupt  bargain? 

Mr.  Douglas.  I  cannot  permit  the  senator  to  change  the  issue.  He 
has  arraigned  me  on  the  charge  of  seeking  high  political  station  by  un 
worthy  means.  I  tell  him  there  is  nothing  in  my  history  which  would 
create  the  suspicion  that  I  came  into  the  Senate  by  a  corrupt  bargain  or 
a  disgraceful  coalition. 

Mr.  Chase.  Whoever  says  that  I  came  here  by  a  corrupt  bargain  states 
what  is  false. 

Mr.  Wetter.     Mr.  President  — 

Mr.  Douglas.  My  friend  from  California  will  wait  till  I  get  through,  if 
he  pleases. 

The  Presiding  Officer.  The  Senator  from  Illinois  is  entitled  to  the 
floor. 

Mr.  Douglas.  It  will  not  do  for  the  senator  from  Ohio  to  return  offen 
sive  expressions  after  what  I  have  said  and  proven.  Nor  can  I  permit 
him  to  change  the  issue,  and  thereby  divert  public  attention  from  the 
enormity  of  his  offence,  in  charging  me  with  unworthy  motives,  while 
performing  a  high  public  duty,  in  obedience  to  the  expressed  wish  and 
known  principles  of  my  State.  I  choose  to  maintain  my  own  position, 
and  leave  the  public  to  ascertain,  if  they  do  not  understand,  how  and  by 
what  means  he  was  elected  to  the  Senate. 

Mr.  Chase.  If  the  senator  will  allow  me,  I  will  say,  in  reply  to  the 
remarks  which  the  senator  has  just  made,  that  I  did  not  understand  him 
as  calling  upon  me  for  any  explanation  of  the  statement  which  he  said 


APPENDIX  211 

was  made  in  regard  to  a  Presidential  bid.  The  exact  statement  in  the 
address  was  this  —  it  was  a  question  addressed  to  the  people:  "Would 
they  allow  their  dearest  rights  to  be  made  the  hazards  of  a  Presidential 
game?"  That  was  the  exact  expression.  Now,  sir,  it  is  well  known  that 
all  these  great  measures  in  the  country  are  influenced,  more  or  less,  by 
reference  to  the  great  public  convasses  which  are  going  on  from  time  to 
time.  I  certainly  did  not  intend  to  impute  to  the  senator  from  Illinois  — 
and  I  desire  always  to  do  justice  —  in  that  any  improper  motive.  I  do 
not  think  it  is  an  unworthy  ambition  to  desire  to  be  a  President  of  the 
United  States.  I  do  not  think  that  the  bringing  forward  of  a  measure 
with  reference  to  that  object  would  be  an  improper  thing,  if  the  meas 
ure  be  proper  in  itself.  I  differ  from  the  senator  in  my  judgment  of  the 
measure.  I  do  not  think  the  measure  is  a  right  one.  In  that  I  express 
the  judgment  which  I  honestly  entertain.  I  do  not  condemn  his  judg 
ment;  I  do  not  make,  and  I  do  not  desire  to  make,  any  personal  imputa 
tions  upon  him  in  reference  to  a  great  public  question. 

Mr.  Wetter.     Mr.  President  — 

Mr.  Douglas.  I  cannot  allow  my  friend  from  California  to  come  into 
the  debate  at  this  time,  for  this  is  my  peculiar  business.  I  may  let  him 
in  after  a  while.  I  wish  to  examine  the  explanation  of  the  senator  from 
Ohio,  and  see  whether  I  ought  to  accept  it  as  satisfactory.  He  has  quoted 
the  language  of  the  address.  It  is  undeniable  that  that  language  clearly 
imputed  to  me  the  design  of  bringing  forward  this  bill  with  a  view  of  secur 
ing  my  own  election  to  the  Presidency.  Then,  by  way  of  excusing  himself 
for  imputing  to  me  such  a  purpose,  the  senator  says  that  he  does  not  con 
sider  it  "an  unworthy  ambition";  and  hence  he  says  that,  in  making  the 
charge,  he  does  not  impugn  my  motives.  I  must  remind  him  that,  in 
addition  to  that  insinuation,  he  only  said  in  the  same  address,  that  my 
bill  was  a  "criminal  betrayal  of  precious  rights";  he  only  said  it  was 
"an  atrocious  plot  against  freedom  and  humanity";  he  only  said  that  it 
was  "meditated  bad  faith";  he  only  spoke  significantly  of  "servile  dema 
gogues";  he  only  called  upon  the  preachers  of  the  gospel  and  the  people 
at  their  public  meetings  to  denounce  and  resist  such  a  monstrous  iniquity. 
In  saying  all  this,  and  much  of  the  same  sort,  he  now  assures  me,  in  the 
presence  of  the  Senate,  that  he  did  not  mean  the  charge  to  imply  an  "un 
worthy  ambition";  that  it  was  not  intended  as  a  "personal  imputation" 
upon  my  motives  or  character;  and  that  he  meant  "no  personal  disre 
spect  "  to  me  as  the  author  of  the  measure.  In  reply,  I  will  content  my 
self  with  the  remark,  that  there  is  a  very  wide  difference  of  opinion  between 
the  senator  from  Ohio  and  myself  in  respect  to  the  meaning  of  words,  and 
especially  in  regard  to  the  line  of  conduct  which,  in  a  public  man,  does  not 
constitute  an  unworthy  ambition. 

Mr.  Sumner.  Will  the  senator  from  Illinois  yield  the  floor  to  me  for 
a  moment? 

Mr.  Douglas.  As  I  presume  it  is  on  the  same  point,  I  will  hear  the 
testimony. 


212  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

Mr.  Sumner.  Mr.  President,  I  shrink  always  instinctively  from  any 
effort  to  repel  a  personal  assault.  I  do  not  recognize  the  jurisdiction  of 
this  body  to  try  my  election  to  the  Senate ;  but  I  do  state,  in  reply  to  the 
senator  from  Illinois,  that  if  he  means  to  suggest  that  I  came  into  the  body 
by  any  waiver  of  principles;  by  any  abandonment  of  my  principles  of 
any  kind;  by  any  effort  or  activity  of  my  own,  in  any  degree,  he  states 
that  which  cannot  be  sustained  by  the  facts.  I  never  sought,  in  any  way, 
the  office  which  I  now  hold;  nor  was  I  a  party,  in  any  way,  directly  or 
indirectly,  to  those  efforts  which  placed  me  here. 

Mr.  Douglas.  I  do  not  complain  of  my  friend  from  California  for  in 
terposing  in  the  manner  he  has ;  for  I  see  that  it  was  very  appropriate  in 
him  to  do  so.  But,  sir,  the  senator  from  Massachusetts  comes  up  with 
a  very  bold  front,  and  denies  the  right  of  any  man  to  put  him  on  defence 
for  the  manner  of  his  election.  He  says  it  is  contrary  to  his  principles  to 
engage  in  personal  assaults.  If  he  expects  to  avail  himself  of  the  benefit 
of  such  a  plea,  he  should  act  in  accordance  with  his  professed  principles, 
and  refrain  from  assaulting  the  character  and  impugning  the  motives  of 
better  men  than  himself.  Everybody  knows  that  he  came  here  by  a  coali 
tion  or  combination  between  political  parties  holding  opposite  and  hostile 
opinions.  But  it  is  not  my  purpose  to  go  into  the  morality  of  the  matters 
involved  in  his  election.  The  public  know  the  history  of  that  notorious 
coalition,  and  have  formed  its  judgment  upon  it.  It  will  not  do  for  the 
senator  to  say  that  he  was  not  a  party  to  it,  for  he  thereby  betrays  a 
consciousness  of  the  immorality  of  the  transaction  without  acquitting  him 
self  of  the  responsibilities  which  justly  attach  to  him.  As  well  might  the 
receiver  of  stolen  goods  deny  any  responsibility  for  the  larceny,  while 
luxuriating  in  the  proceeds  of  the  crime,  as  the  senator  to  avoid  the  con 
sequences  resulting  from  the  mode  of  his  election,  while  he  clings  to  the 
office.  I  must  be  permitted  to  remind  him  of  what  he  certainly  can  never 
forget,  that  when  he  arrived  here  to  take  his  seat  for  the  first  time,  so 
firmly  were  senators  impressed  with  the  conviction  that  he  had  been  elected 
by  dishonorable  and  corrupt  means,  there  were  very  few  who,  for  a  long 
time,  could  deem  it  consistent  with  personal  honor  to  hold  private  inter 
course  with  him.  So  general  was  that  impression,  that  for  a  long  time  he 
was  avoided  and  shunned  as  a  person  unworthy  of  the  association  of 
gentlemen.  Gradually,  however,  these  injurious  impressions  were  worn 
away  by  his  bland  manners  and  amiable  deportment;  and  I  regret  that 
the  senator  should  now,  by  a  violation  of  all  the  rules  of  courtesy  and  pro 
priety,  compel  me  to  refresh  his  mind  upon  these  unwelcome  reminiscences. 

Mr.  President,  I  have  done  with  these  personal  matters.  I  regret  the 
necessity  which  compelled  me  to  devote  so  much  time  to  them.  All  I 
have  done  and  said  has  been  in  the  way  of  self-defence,  as  the  Senate  can 
bear  me  witness. 

Mr.  President,  I  have  also  occupied  a  good  deal  of  time  in  exposing  the 
cant  of  these  gentlemen  about  the  sanctity  of  the  Missouri  Compromise, 
and  the  dishonor  attached  to  the  violation  of  plighted  faith.  I  have 


APPENDIX  213 

exposed  these  matters  in  order  to  show  that  the  object  of  these  men  is  to 
withdraw  from  public  attention  the  real  principle  involved  in  the  bill. 
They  well  know  that  the  abrogation  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  is  the 
incident  and  not  the  principle  of  the  bill.  They  well  understand  that  the 
report  of  the  committee  and  the  bill  propose  to  establish  the  principle  in 
all  Territorial  organizations,  that  the  question  of  slavery  shall  be  referred 
to  the  people  to  regulate  for  themselves,  and  that  such  legislation  should 
be  had  as  was  necessary  to  remove  all  legal  obstructions  to  the  free  ex 
ercise  of  this  right  by  the  people. 

The  eighth  section  of  the  Missouri  act  standing  in  the  way  of  this  great 
principle  must  be  rendered  inoperative  and  void,  whether  expressly 
repealed  or  not,  in  order  to  give  the  people  the  power  of  regulating 
their  own  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the 
Constitution. 

Now,  sir,  if  these  gentlemen  have  entire  confidence  in  the  correctness  of 
their  own  position,  why  do  they  not  meet  the  issue  boldly  and  fairly,  and 
controvert  the  soundness  of  this  great  principle  of  popular  sovereignty 
in  obedience  to  the  Constitution?  They  know  full  well  that  this  was  the 
principle  upon  which  the  colonies  separated  from  the  crown  of  Great 
Britain,  the  principle  upon  which  the  battles  of  the  Revolution  were 
fought,  and  the  principle  upon  which  our  republican  system  was  founded. 
They  cannot  be  ignorant  of  the  fact  that  the  Revolution  grew  out  of  the 
assertion  of  the  right  on  the  part  of  the  Imperial  Government  to  interfere 
with  the  internal  affairs  and  domestic  concerns  of  the  colonies. 

Abolitionism  proposes  to  destroy  the  right  and  extinguish  the  principle 
for  which  our  forefathers  waged  a  seven  years'  bloody  war,  and  upon  which 
our  whole  system  of  free  government  is  founded.  They  not  only  deny 
the  application  of  this  principle  to  the  Territories,  but  insist  upon  fasten 
ing  the  prohibition  upon  all  the  States  to  be  formed  out  of  those  Territo 
ries.  Therefore,  the  doctrine  of  the  Abolitionists  —  the  doctrine  of  the 
opponents  of  the  Nebraska  and  Kansas  Bill,  and  of  the  advocates  of  the 
Missouri  restriction  —  demand  Congressional  interference  with  slavery, 
not  only  in  the  Territories,  but  in  all  the  new  States  to  be  formed  there 
from.  It  is  the  same  doctrine,  when  applied  to  the  Territories  and  new 
States  of  this  Union,  which  the  British  Government  attempted  to  enforce 
by  the  sword  upon  the  American  colonies.  It  is  this  fundamental  prin 
ciple  of  self-government  which  constitutes  the  distinguishing  feature  of 
the  Nebraska  bill.  The  opponents  of  the  principle  are  consistent  in  op 
posing  the  bill.  I  do  not  blame  them  for  their  opposition.  I  only  ask 
them  to  meet  the  issue  fairly  and  openly,  by  acknowledging  that  they 
are  opposed  to  the  principle  which  it  is  the  object  of  the  bill  to  carry  into 
operation.  It  seems  that  there  is  no  power  on  earth,  no  intellectual  power, 
no  mechanical  power,  that  can  bring  them  to  a  fair  discussion  of  the  true 
issue.  If  they  hope  to  delude  the  people  and  escape  detection  for  any 
considerable  length  of  time  under  the  catch-words,  "Missouri  Com 
promise,"  and  "faith  of  compacts,"  they  will  find  that  the  people  of  this 


214  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

country  have  more  penetration  and  intelligence  than  they  have  given 
them  credit  for. 

Mr.  President,  there  is  an  important  fact  connected  with  this  slavery 
resolution  which  should  never  be  lost  sight  of.  It  has  always  arisen  from 
one  and  the  same  cause.  Whenever  that  cause  has  been  removed,  the 
agitation  has  ceased ;  and  whenever  the  cause  has  been  renewed,  the  agi 
tation  has  sprung  into  existence.  That  cause  is,  and  ever  has  been,  the 
attempt  on  the  part  of  Congress  to  interfere  with  the  question  of  slavery  in 
the  Territories  and  new  States  formed  therefrom.  Is  it  not  wise,  then, 
to  confine  our  action  within  the  sphere  of  our  legitimate  duties,  and  leave 
this  vexed  question  to  take  care  of  itself  in  each  State  and  Territory,  ac 
cording  to  the  wishes  of  the  people  thereof,  in  conformity  to  the  forms 
and  in  subjection  to  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution? 

The  opponents  of  the  bill  tell  us  that  agitation  is  no  part  of  their  policy, 
that  their  great  desire  is  peace  and  harmony ;  and  they  complain  bitterly 
that  I  should  have  disturbed  the  repose  of  the  country  by  the  introduction 
of  this  measure.  Let  me  ask  these  professed  friends  of  peace  and  avowed 
enemies  of  agitation,  how  the  issue  could  have  been  avoided?  They  tell 
me  that  I  should  have  let  the  question  alone  —  that  is,  that  I  should  have 
left  Nebraska  unorganized,  the  people  unprotected,  and  the  Indian  barrier 
in  existence,  until  the  swelling  tide  of  emigration  should  burst  through, 
and  accomplish  by  violence  what  it  is  the  part  of  wisdom  and  statesman 
ship  to  direct  and  regulate  by  law.  How  long  could  you  have  postponed 
action  with  safety?  How  long  could  you  maintain  that  Indian  barrier, 
and  restrain  the  onward  march  of  civilization,  Christianity,  and  free  gov 
ernment  by  a  barbarian  wall  ?  Do  you  suppose  that  you  could  keep  that 
vast  country  a  howling  wilderness  in  all  time  to  come,  roamed  over  by 
hostile  savages,  cutting  off  all  safe  communication  between  our  Atlantic 
and  Pacific  possessions?  I  tell  you  that  the  time  for  action  has  come, 
and  cannot  be  postponed.  It  is  a  case  in  which  the  ''let-alone"  policy 
would  precipitate  a  crisis  which  must  inevitably  result  in  violence,  anarchy, 
and  strife. 

You  cannot  fix  bounds  to  the  onward  march  of  this  great  and  growing 
country.  You  cannot  fetter  the  limbs  of  the  young  giant.  He  will  burst 
all  your  chains.  He  will  expand,  and  grow,  and  increase,  and  extend 
civilization,  Christianity,  and  liberal  principles.  Then,  sir,  if  you  cannot 
check  the  growth  of  the  country  in  that  direction,  is  it  not  the  part  of 
wisdom  to  look  the  danger  in  the  face,  and  provide  for  an  event  which 
you  cannot  avoid?  I  tell  you,  sir,  you  must  provide  for  continuous  lines 
of  settlement  from  the  Mississippi  Valley  to  the  Pacific  Ocean.  And  in 
making  this  provision  you  must  decide  upon  what  principles  the  Terri 
tories  shall  be  organized;  in  other  words,  whether  the  people  shall  be 
allowed  to  regulate  their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way,  accord 
ing  to  the  provisions  of  this  bill,  or  whether  the  opposite  doctrine  of 
Congressional  interference  is  to  prevail.  Postpone  it,  if  you  will;  but 
whenever  you  do  act,  this  question  must  be  met  and  decided. 

The  Missouri  Compromise  was  interference;    the  compromise  of  1850 


APPENDIX  215 

was  non-interference,  leaving  the  people  to  exercise  their  rights  under  the 
Constitution.  The  Committee  on  Territories  were  compelled  to  act  on 
this  subject.  I,  as  their  chairman,  was  bound  to  meet  the  question.  I 
chose  to  take  the  responsibility,  regardless  of  consequences  personal  to 
myself.  I  should  have  done  the  same  thing  last  year,  if  there  had  been 
time;  but  we  know,  considering  the  late  period  at  which  the  bill  then 
reached  us  from  the  House,  that  there  was  not  sufficient  time  to  consider 
the  question  fully,  and  to  prepare  a  report  upon  the  subject.  I  was,  there 
fore,  persuaded  by  friends  to  allow  the  bill  to  be  reported  to  the  Senate, 
in  order  that  such  action  might  be  taken  as  should  be  deemed  wise  and 
proper. 

The  bill  was  never  taken  up  for  action,  the  last  night  of  the  session 
having  been  exhausted  in  debate  on  the  motion  to  take  up  the  bill.  This 
session  the  measure  was  introduced  by  my  friend  from  Iowa  [Mr.  Dodge], 
and  referred  to  the  territorial  committee  during  the  first  week  of  the 
session.  We  have  abundance  of  time  to  consider  the  subject;  it  was  a 
matter  of  pressing  necessity,  and  there  was  no  excuse  for  not  meeting  it 
directly  and  fairly.  We  were  compelled  to  take  our  position  upon  the  doc 
trine  either  of  intervention  or  non-intervention.  We  chose  the  latter, 
for  two  reasons:  first,  because  we  believed  that  the  principle  was  right; 
and,  second,  because  it  was  the  principle  adopted  in  1850,  to  which  the 
two  great  political  parties  of  the  country  were  solemnly  pledged. 

There  is  another  reason  why  I  desire  to  see  this  principle  recognized  as 
a  rule  of  action  in  all  time  to  come.  It  will  have  the  effect  to  destroy  all 
sectional  parties  and  sectional  agitations.  If,  in  the  language  of  the  re 
port  of  the  committee,  you  withdraw  the  slavery  question  from  the  halls 
of  Congress  and  the  political  arena,  and  commit  it  to  the  arbitrament  of 
those  who  are  immediately  interested  in  and  alone  responsible  for  its  con 
sequences,  there  is  nothing  left  out  of  which  sectional  parties  can  be  or 
ganized.  It  never  was  done,  and  never  can  he  done,  on  the  bank,  tariff, 
distribution,  or  any  other  party  issue  which  has  existed,  or  may  exist, 
after  this  slavery  question  is  withdrawn  from  politics.  On  every  other 
political  question  these  have  always  supporters  and  opponents  in  every 
portion  of  the  Union  —  in  each  State,  county,  village,  and  neighborhood  — 
residing  together  in  harmony  and  goodfellowship,  and  combating  each 
other's  opinions  and  correcting  each  other's  errors  in  a  spirit  of  kindness 
and  friendship.  These  differences  of  opinion  between  neighbors  and  friends, 
and  the  discussions  that  grow  out  of  them,  and  the  sympathy  which  each 
feels  with  the  advocates  of  his  own  opinions  in  every  other  portion  of  this 
widespread  republic,  adds  an  overwhelming  and  irresistible  moral  weight 
to  the  strength  of  the  confederacy. 

Affection  for  the  Union  can  never  be  alienated  or  diminished  by  any 
other  party  issues  than  those  which  are  joined  upon  sectional  or  geo 
graphical  lines.  When  the  people  of  the  North  shall  all  be  rallied  under 
one  banner,  and  the  whole  South  marshalled  under  another  banner,  and 
each  section  excited  to  frenzy  and  madness  by  hostility  to  the  institu 
tions  of  the  other,  then  the  patriot  may  well  tremble  for  the  perpetuity 


216  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

of  the  Union.  Withdraw  the  slavery  question  from  the  political  arena, 
and  remove  it  to  the  States  and  Territories,  each  to  decide  for  itself,  such 
a  catastrophe  can  never  happen.  Then  you  will  never  be  able  to  tell, 
by  any  senator's  vote  for  or  against  any  measure,  from  what  State  or 
section  of  the  Union  he  comes. 

Why,  then,  can  we  not  withdraw  this  vexed  question  from  politics? 
Why  can  we  not  adopt  the  principle  of  this  bill  as  a  rule  of  action  in  all 
new  Territorial  organizations?  Why  can  we  not  deprive  these  agitators 
of  their  vocation,  and  render  it  impossible  for  senators  to  come  here  upon 
bargains  on  the  slavery  question?  I  believe  that  the  peace,  the  harmony, 
and  perpetuity  of  the  Union  require  us  to  go  back  to  the  doctrines  of  the 
Revolution,  to  the  principles  of  the  Constitution,  to  the  principles  of  the 
compromise  of  1850,  and  leave  the  people,  under  the  Constitution,  to  do 
as  they  may  see  proper  in  respect  to  their  own  internal  affairs. 

Mr.  President,  I  have  not  brought  this  question  forward  as  a  Northern 
man  or  as  a  Southern  man.  I  am  unwilling  to  recognize  such  divisions 
and  distinctions.  I  have  brought  it  forward  as  an  American  senator, 
representing  a  State  which  is  true  to  this  principle,  and  which  has  ap 
proved  of  my  action  in  respect  to  the  Nebraska  bill.  I  have  brought  it 
forward  not  as  an  act  of  justice  to  the  South  more  than  to  the  North.  I 
have  presented  it  especially  as  an  act  of  justice  to  the  people  of  those 
Territories,  and  of  the  States  to  be  formed  therefrom,  now  and  in  all  time 
to  come. 

I  have  nothing  to  say  about  Northern  rights  or  Southern  rights.  I 
know  of  no  such  divisions  or  distinctions  under  the  Constitution.  The 
bill  does  equal  and  exact  justice  to  the  whole  Union,  and  every  part  of  it; 
it  violates  the  rights  of  no  State  or  Territory,  but  places  each  on  a  perfect 
equality,  and  leaves  the  people  thereof  to  the  free  enjoyment  of  all  their 
rights  under  the  Constitution. 

Now,  sir,  I  wish  to  say  to  our  Southern  friends,  that  if  they  desire  to  see 
this  great  principle  carried  out,  now  is  their  time  to  rally  around  it,  to 
cherish  it,  preserve  it,  make  it  the  rule  of  action  in  all  future  time.  If  they 
fail  to  do  it  now,  and  thereby  allow  the  doctrine  of  interference  to  prevail, 
upon  their  heads  the  consequence  of  that  interference  must  rest.  To  our 
Northern  friends,  on  the  other  hand,  I  desire  to  say,  that  from  this  day 
henceforward,  they  must  rebuke  the  slander  which  has  been  uttered 
against  the  South,  that  they  desire  to  legislate  slavery  into  the  Territo 
ries.  The  South  has  vindicated  her  sincerity,  her  honor,  on  that  point, 
by  bringing  forward  a  provision,  negativing,  in  express  terms,  any  such 
effect  as  a  result  of  this  bill.  I  am  rejoiced  to  know  that,  while  the  propo 
sition  to  abrogate  the  eighth  section  of  the  Missouri  act  comes  from  a 
free  State,  the  proposition  to  negative  the  conclusion  that  slavery  is  thereby 
introduced  comes  from  a  slaveholding  State.  Thus,  both  sides  furnish 
conclusive  evidence  that  they  go  for  the  principle,  and  the  principle  only, 
and  desire  to  take  no  advantage  of  any  possible  misconstruction. 

Mr.  President,  I  feel  that  I  owe  an  apology  to  the  Senate  for  having 
occupied  their  attention  so  long,  and  a  still  greater  apology  for  having 


APPENDIX  217 

discussed  the  question  in  such  an  incoherent  and  desultory  manner.  But 
I  could  not  forbear  to  claim  the  right  of  closing  this  debate.  I  thought 
gentlemen  would  recognize  its  propriety  when  they  saw  the  manner  in 
which  I  was  assailed  and  misrepresented  in  the  course  of  this  discussion, 
and  especially  by  assaults  still  more  disreputable  to  some  portions  of  the 
country.  These  assaults  have  had  no  other  effect  upon  me  than  to  give 
me  courage  and  energy  for  a  still  more  resolute  discharge  of  duty.  I  say 
frankly  that,  in  my  opinion,  this  measure  will  be  as  popular  at  the  North 
as  at  the  South,  when  its  provisions  and  principles  shall  have  been  fully 
developed  and  become  well  understood.  The  people  at  the  North  are  at 
tached  to  the  principles  of  self-government;  and  you  cannot  convince 
them  that  that  is  self-government  which  deprives  a  people  of  the  right  of 
legislating  for  themselves,  and  compels  them  to  receive  laws  which  are 
forced  upon  them  by  a  Legislature  in  which  they  are  not  represented. 
We  are  willing  to  stand  upon  this  great  principle  of  self-government  every 
where;  and  it  is  to  us  a  proud  reflection  that,  in  this  whole  discussion, 
no  friend  of  the  bill  has  urged  an  argument  in  its  favor  which  could  not 
be  used  with  the  same  propriety  in  a  free  State  as  in  a  slave  State,  and 
vice  versa.  But  no  enemy  of  the  bill  has  used  an  argument  which  would 
bear  repetition  one  mile  across  Mason  and  Dixon's  line.  Our  opponents 
have  dealt  entirely  in  sectional  appeals.  The  friends  of  the  bill  have  dis 
cussed  a  great  principle  of  universal  application,  which  can  be  sustained 
by  the  same  reasons,  and  the  same  arguments,  in  every  time  and  in  every 
corner  of  the  Union. 


SPEECH   IN  THE  SENATE  ON  THE  LECOMPTON 
CONSTITUTION 

(Delivered  March  22,  1857) 

THE  proposition  offered  by  me  to  extend  the  Missouri  Compromise  line 
to  the  Pacific  Ocean  in  the  same  sense  and  with  the  same  understanding 
with  which  it  was  originally  adopted,  was  agreed  to  by  the  Senate  by  a 
majority  of  twelve.  When  the  bill  was  sent  to  the  House  of  Representa 
tives,  that  provision  was  stricken  out,  I  think,  by  thirty-nine  majority. 
By  that  vote  the  policy  of  separating  free  territory  from  slave  territory 
by  a  geographical  line  was  abandoned  by  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States.  It  is  not  my  purpose  on  this  occasion  to  inquire  whether  the  policy 
was  right  or  wrong;  whether  its  abandonment  at  that  time  was  wise  o-r 
unwise;  that  is  a  question  long  since  consigned  to  history,  and  I  leave  it 
to  that  tribunal  to  determine.  I  only  refer  to  it  now  for  the  purpose  of 
showing  the  view  which  I  then  took  of  the  question.  It  will  be  seen,  by 
reference  to  the  votes  in  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives,  that 
Southern  men  in  a  body  voted  for  the  extension  of  the  Missouri  Com 
promise  line,  and  a  very  large  majority  of  the  Northern  men  voted  against 
it.  The  argument  then  made  against  the  policy  of  a  geographical  line 
was  one  which  upon  principle  it  was  difficult  to  answer.  It  was  urged 
that  if  slavery  was  wrong  north  of  the  line,  it  could  not  be  right  south 
of  the  line;  that  if  it  was  unwise,  impolitic,  and  injurious  on  the  one  side, 
it  could  not  be  wise,  politic,  and  judicious  upon  the  other;  that  if  the  peo 
ple  should  be  left  to  decide  the  question  for  themselves  on  the  one  side, 
they  should  be  entitled  to  the  same  privilege  on  the  other.  I  thought 
these  arguments  were  difficult  to  answer  upon  principle.  The  only  answer 
urged  was,  that  the  policy  had  its  origin  in  patriotic  motives,  in  fraternal 
feeling,  in  that  brotherly  affection  which  ought  to  animate  all  the  citizens 
of  a  common  country ;  and  that,  for  the  sake  of  peace,  and  harmony,  and 
concord,  we  ought  to  adhere  to  and  preserve  that  policy.  Under  these 
considerations,  I  not  only  voted  for  it,  but  moved  it,  and  lamented  as  much 
as  any  man  in  the  country  its  failure,  because  that  failure  precipitated 
us  into  a  sectional  strife  and  agitation,  the  like  of  which  had  never  before 
been  witnessed  in  the  United  States,  and  which  alarmed  the  wisest,  the 
purest,  and  the  best  patriots  in  the  land  for  the  safety  of  the  republic. 

You  all  recollect  the  agitation  which  raged  through  this  land  from  1848 
to  1850,  and  which  was  only  quieted  by  the  compromise  measures  of  the 
latter  year.  You  all  remember  how  the  venerable  sage  and  patriot  of 
Ashland  was  called  forth  from  his  retirement  for  the  sole  purpose  of  being 


APPENDIX  219 

able  to  contribute,  by  his  wisdom,  by  his  patriotism,  by  his  experience, 
by  the  weight  of  his  authority,  something  to  calm  the  troubled  waters  and 
restore  peace  and  harmony  to  a  distracted  country.  That  contest  waged 
fiercely,  almost  savagely,  threatening  the  peace  and  existence  of  the  Union, 
until  at  last,  by  the  wise  counsels  of  a  Clay,  a  Webster,  and  a  Cass,  and 
the  other  leading  spirits  of  the  country,  a  new  plan  of  conciliation  and 
settlement  was  agreed  upon,  which  again  restored  peace  to  the  Union. 
The  policy  of  a  geographical  line  separating  free  territory  from  slave 
territory  was  abandoned  by  its  friends  only  because  they  found  them 
selves  without  the  power  to  adhere  to  it,  and  carry  it  into  effect  in  good 
faith.  If  that  policy  had  been  continued,  if  the  Missouri  line  had  been 
extended  to  the  Pacific  Ocean,  there  would  have  been  an  end  to  the  slavery 
agitation  forever  —  for  on  one  side,  as  far  west  as  the  Continent  extended, 
slavery  would  have  been  prohibited,  while  on  the  other,  by  legal  implica 
tion,  it  would  have  been  taken  for  granted  that  the  institution  of  slavery- 
would  have  existed  and  continued,  and  .emigration  would  have  sought 
the  one  side  of  the  line  or  the  other,  as  it  preferred  the  one  or  the  other 
class  of  domestic  and  social  institutions.  I  confess,  sir,  that  it  was  my 
opinion  then,  and  is  my  opinion  now,  that  the  extension  of  that  line  would 
have  been  favorable  to  the  South,  so  far  as  any  sectional  advantage 
would  have  been  obtained,  if  it  be  an  advantage  to  any  section  to  ex 
tend  its  peculiar  institutions.  Southern  men  seemed  so  to  consider  it, 
for  they  voted  almost  unanimously  in  favor  of  that  policy  prohibiting 
slavery  on  one  side,  contented  with  a  silent  implication  in  its  favor  on 
the  other.  Northern  representatives  and  senators  seemed  to  take  the 
same  view  of  the  subject,  for  a  large  majority  of  them  voted  against  this 
geographical  policy,  and  in  lieu  of  it  insisted  upon  a  law  prohibiting 
slavery  everywhere  within  the  Territories  of  the  United  States,  north  as 
well  as  south  of  the  line;  and  not  only  in  the  Territories,  but  in  the 
dock-yards,  the  navy-yards,  and  all  other  public  places  over  which  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States  had  exclusive  jurisdiction. 

Such,  sir,  was  the  state  of  public  opinion,  as  evidenced  by  the  acts  of 
representatives  and  senators  on  the  question  of  a  geographical  line  by  the 
extension  of  the  Missouri  Compromise,  as  it  is  called,  from  1848  to  1850, 
which  caused  it  to  be  abandoned,  and  the  compromise  measures  of  1850 
to  be  substituted  in  its  place.  Those  measures  are  familiar  to  the  Senate 
and  to  the  country.  They  are  predicated  upon  the  abandonment  of  a 
geographical  line,  and  upon  the  great  principle  of  self-government  in  the 
Territories,  and  the  sovereignty  of  the  States  over  the  question  of  slavery, 
as  well  as  over  all  other  matters  of  local  and  domestic  concern.  Inasmuch  as 
the  time-honored  and  venerated  policy  of  a  geographical  line  had  been 
abandoned,  the  great  leaders  of  the  Senate,  and  the  great  commoners  in 
the  other  House  of  Congress,  saw  no  other  remedy  but  to  return  to  the 
true  principles  of  the  Constitution  —  to  those  great  principles  of  self- 
government  and  popular  sovereignty  upon  which  all  free  institutions  rest, 
and  to  leave  the  people  of  the  Territories  and  of  the  States  free  to  decide 
the  slavery  question,  as  well  as  all  other  questions,  for  themselves. 


220  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

Mr.  President,  I  am  one  of  those  who  concurred  cheerfully  and  heartily 
in  this  new  line  of  policy  marked  out  by  the  compromise  measures  of 
1850.  Having  been  compelled  to  abandon  the  former  policy  of  a  geo 
graphical  line,  for  want  of  ability  to  carry  it  out,  I  joined  with  the  great 
patriots  to  whom  I  have  alluded,  to  calm  and  quiet  the  country  by  the 
adoption  of  a  policy  more  congenial  to  my  views  of  free  institutions,  not 
only  for  the  purpose  of  healing  and  harmonizing  the  strife  and  controversy 
which  then  existed,  but  for  the  farther  purpose  of  providing  a  rule  of 
action  in  all  time  to  come  which  would  avoid  sectional  strife  and  sectional 
controversy  in  the  future.  It  was  one  of  the  great  merits  of  the  compromise 
measures  of  1850  —  indeed,  it  was  their  chief  merit  —  that  they  furnished 
a  principle,  a  rule  of  action  which  should  apply  everywhere  —  north  and 
south  of  36°  30'  —  not  only  to  the  territory  which  we  then  had,  but  to  all 
that  we  might  afterward  acquire,  and  thus,  if  that  principle  was  adhered 
to,  prevent  any  strife,  any  controversy,  any  sectional  agitation  in  the 
future.  The  object  was  to  localize,  not  to  nationalize,  the  controversy 
in  regard  to  slavery ;  to  make  it  a  question  for  each  State  and  each  Terri 
tory  to  decide  for  itself,  without  any  other  State,  or  any  other  Territory, 
or  the  Federal  Government,  or  any  outside  power  interfering,  directly  or 
indirectly,  to  influence  or  control  the  result. 

My  course  upon  those  measures  created  at  first  great  excitement,  and 
I  may  say  great  indignation,  at  my  own  home,  so  that  it  became  necessary 
for  me  to  go  before  the  people  and  vindicate  my  action.  I  made  a  speech 
at  Chicago  upon  my  return  home,  in  which  I  stated  the  principles  of  the 
compromise  measures  of  1850  as  I  have  now  stated  them  here,  and  vindi 
cated  them  to  the  best  of  my  ability.  It  is  enough  to  say  that,  upon  sober 
reflection,  the  people  of  Illinois  approved  the  course  which  I  then  pursued ; 
and  when  the  Legislature  came  together,  they  passed,  with  great  unanimity, 
resolutions  endorsing  emphatically  the  principle  of  those  measures. 

In  1854,  when  it  became  necessary  to  organize  the  Territories  of  Kansas 
and  Nebraska,  the  question  arose,  What  principle  was  to  apply  to  those 
Territories?  It  was  true  they  both  lay  north  of  the  line  of  36°  30';  but 
it  was  also  true  that,  four  years  before,  the  policy  of  a  geographical  line 
had  been  abandoned  and  repudiated  by  the  Congress  of  the  United  States, 
and  in  lieu  of  it  the  plan  of  leaving  each  Territory  free  to  decide  the  ques 
tion  for  itself  had  been  adopted.  I  felt  it  to  be  my  duty,  as  a  senator  from 
the  State  of  Illinois,  and  I  will  say  as  a  member  of  the  Democratic  party, 
to  adhere  in  good  faith  to  the  principles  of  the  compromise  measures  of 
1850,  and  to  apply  them  to  Kansas  and  Nebraska,  as  well  as  to  the  other 
Territories.  To  show  that  I  was  bound  to  pursue  this  course,  it  is  only 
necessary  to  refer  to  the  public  incidents  of  those  times.  In  the  Presiden 
tial  election  of  1852,  the  great  political  parties  of  that  day  each  nominated 
its  candidate  for  the  Presidency  upon  a  platform  which  endorsed  the  com 
promise  measures  of  1850,  and  both  pledged  themselves  to  carry  them 
out  in  good  faith  in  all  future  times  in  the  organization  of  all  new  Terri 
tories.  The  Whig  party  adopted  that  platform  at  Baltimore,  and  placed 
General  Scott,  their  candidate,  upon  it.  The  Democratic  party  adopted 


APPENDIX  221 

a  platform  identical  in  principles,  so  far  as  this  question  was  concerned, 
and  elected  General  Pierce,  President  of  the  United  States,  upon  it.  Thus 
the  Whig  party  and  the  Democratic  party  each  stood  pledged  to  apply 
this  principle  in  the  organization  of  all  new  Territories.  Not  only  was  I 
as  a  Democrat  —  as  a  senator  who  voted  for  their  adoption  —  bound  to 
apply  their  principle  to  this  case,  but,  as  a  senator  from  Illinois,  I  was 
under  an  imperative  obligation,  if  I  desired  to  obey  the  will  and  carry  out 
the  wishes  of  my  constituents,  to  apply  the  same  principle. 

Now,  sir,  the  question  arises  whether  the  Lecompton  Constitution,  which 
has  been  presented  here  for  our  acceptance,  is  in  accordance  with  this 
principle  embodied  in  the  compromise  measures,  and  clearly  defined  in 
the  organic  act  of  Kansas.  Have  the  people  of  Kansas  been  left  perfectly 
free  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way, 
subject  only  to  the  Constitution?  Is  the  Lecompton  Constitution  the 
act  and  deed  of  the  people  of  Kansas  ?  Does  it  embody  their  will  ?  If  not, 
you  have  no  constitutional  right  to  impose  it  upon  them.  If  it  does  em 
body  their  will,  if  it  is  their  act  and  deed,  you  have,  then,  a  right  to  waive 
any  irregularities  that  may  have  occurred,  and  receive  the  State  into  the 
Union.  This  is  the  main  point,  in  my  estimation,  upon  which  the  vote  of 
the  Senate  and  the  House  of  Representatives  ought  to  depend  in  the  de 
cision  of  the  Kansas  question.  Now,  is  there  a  man  within  the  hearing 
of  my  voice  who  believes  that  the  Lecompton  Constitution  does  embody 
the  will  of  a  majority  of  the  bona  fide  inhabitants  of  Kansas?  Where  is 
the  evidence  that  it  does  embody  that  will? 

We  are  told  that  it  was  made  by  a  convention  assembled  at  Lecompton 
in  September  last,  and  has  been  submitted  to  the  people  for  ratification 
or  rejection.  How  submitted?  In  a  manner  that  allowed  every  man  to 
vote  for  it,  but  precluded  the  possibility  of  any  man  voting  against  it.  We 
are  told  that  there  is  a  majority  of  about  five  thousand  five  hundred  votes 
recorded  in  its  favor  under  these  circumstances.  I  refrain  from  going  into 
the  evidence  which  has  been  taken  before  the  commission  recently  held 
in  Kansas  to  show  what  proportion  of  these  votes  were  fraudulent;  but, 
supposing  them  all  to  have  been  legal,  bona  fide  residents,  what  does  that 
fact  prove,  when  the  people  on  that  occasion  were  allowed  only  to  vote 
for,  and  could  not  vote  against,  the  Constitution?  On  the  other  hand,  we 
have  a  vote  of  the  people  in  pursuance  of  law,  on  the  fourth  of  January 
last,  when  this  Constitution  was  submitted  by  the  Legislature  to  the  peo 
ple  for  acceptance  or  rejection,  showing  a  majority  of  more  than  ten  thou 
sand  against  it.  If  you  grant  that  both  these  elections  were  valid,  if  you 
grant  that  the  votes  were  legal  and  fair,  yet  the  majority  is  about  two 
to  one  against  this  Constitution.  Here  is  evidence  to  my  mind  conclusive 
that  this  Lecompton  Constitution  is  not  the  embodiment  of  the  popular 
will  of  Kansas.  How  is  this  evidence  to  be  rebutted  ?  By  the  assumption 
that  the  election  on  the  twenty-first  of  December,  where  the  voters  were 
allowed  to  vote  for  it,  but  not  against  it,  was  a  legal  election;  and  that 
the  election  of  the  fourth  of  January,  where  the  people  were  allowed  to 


•*^i—     i    i  ri  •->.  T" 


222  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 

vote  for  or  against  the  Constitution  as  they  chose,  was  not  a  legal  and  valid 
election. 

Sir,  where  do  you  find  your  evidence  of  the  legality  of  the  election  of 
the  twenty-first  of  December?  Under  what  law  was  that  election  held? 
Under  no  law  except  the  decree  of  the  Lecompton  convention.  Did  that 
convention  possess  legislative  power?  Did  it  possess  any  authority  to 
prescribe  an  election  law?  That  convention  possessed  only  such  power 
as  it  derived  from  the  Territorial  Legislature  in  the  act  authorizing  the 
assembling  of  the  convention;  and  I  submit  that  the  same  authority, 
the  same  power,  existed  in  the  Territorial  Legislature  to  order  an  election 
on  the  fourth  of  January  as  existed  in  the  convention  to  order  one  on  the 
twenty-first  of  December.  The  Legislature  had  the  same  power  over  the 
whole  subject  on  the  seventeenth  of  December,  when  it  passed  a  law  for 
the  submission  of  the  Constitution  to  the  people,  that  it  had  on  the  nine 
teenth  of  February,  when  it  enacted  the  statute  for  the  assembling  of  the 
convention. 

The  convention  assembled  under  the  authority  of  the  Territorial  Legisla 
ture  alone,  and  hence  was  bound  to  conduct  all  its  proceedings  in  con 
formity  with,  and  in  subordination  to,  the  authority  of  the  Legislature. 
The  moment  the  convention  attempted  to  put  its  Constitution  into  opera 
tion  against  the  authority  of  the  Territorial  Legislature,  it  committed  an 
act  of  rebellion  against  the  Government  of  the  United  States.  But  we  are 
told  by  the  President  that  at  the  time  the  Territorial  Legislature  passed 
the  law  submitting  the  whole  Constitution  to  the  people,  the  Territory  had 
been  prepared  for  admission  into  the  Union  as  a  State.  How  prepared? 
By  what  authority  prepared  ?  Not  by  the  authority  of  any  act  of  Congress 
—  by  no  other  authority  than  that  of  the  Territorial  Legislature ;  and 
clearly  a  convention  assembled  under  that  authority  could  do  no  act  to 
subvert  the  Territorial  Legislature  which  brought  the  convention  into 
existence. 

But  gentlemen  assume  that  the  organic  act  of  the  Territory  was  an 
enabling  act;  that  it  delegated  to  the  Legislature  all  the  power  that  Con 
gress  had  to  authorize  the  assembling  of  a  convention.  Although  I  dissent 
from  this  doctrine,  I  am  willing,  for  the  sake  of  the  argument,  to  assume 
it  to  be  correct;  and  if  it  be  correct,  to  what  conclusion  does  it  lead  us? 
It  only  substitutes  the  Territorial  Legislature  for  the  authority  of  Congress, 
and  gives  validity  to  the  convention;  and  therefore  the  Legislature  would 
have  just  the  same  right  that  Congress  otherwise  would  have  had,  and  no 
more,  and  no  less.  Suppose,  now,  that  Congress  had  passed  an  enabling 
act,  and  a  convention  had  been  called,  and  a  Constitution  framed  under 
it;  but  three  days  before  that  Constitution  was  to  take  effect,  Congress 
should  pass  another  act  repealing  the  convention  law,  and  submitting  the 
Constitution  to  the  vote  of  the  people ;  would  it  be  denied  that  the  act 
of  Congress  submitting  the  Constitution  would  be  a  valid  act  ?  If  Congress 
would  have  authority  thus  to  interpose,  and  submit  the  Constitution  to 
the  vote  of  the  people,  it  clearly  follows  that  if  the  Legislature  stood  in  the 
place  of  Congress,  and  was  vested  with  the  power  which  Congress  had  on 


APPENDIX  223 

the  subject,  it  had  the  same  right  to  interpose,  and  submit  this  Constitu 
tion  to  the  people  for  ratification  or  rejection. 

Therefore,  sir,  if  you  judge  this  Constitution  by  the  technical  rules  of  law, 
it  was  voted  down  by  an  overwhelming  majority  of  the  people  of  Kansas, 
and  it  became  null  and  void ;  and  you  are  called  upon  now  to  give  vitality 
to  a  void,  rejected,  repudiated  Constitution.  If,  however,  you  set  aside 
the  technicalities  of  law,  and  approach  it  in  the  spirit  of  statesmanship, 
in  the  spirit  of  justice  and  of  fairness,  with  an  eye  single  to  ascertain  what 
is  the  wish  and  the  will  of  that  people,  you  are  forced  to  the  conclusion 
that  the  Lecompton  Constitution  does  not  embody  that  will. 

Sir,  we  have  heard  the  argument  over  and  over  again  that  the  Lecompton 
convention  was  justified  in  withholding  this  Constitution  from  submission 
to  the  people,  for  the  reason  that  it  would  have  been  voted  down  if  it  had 
been  submitted  to  the  people  for  ratification  or  rejection.  We  are  told 
that  there  was  a  large  majority  of  free-state  men  in  the  Territory,  who 
would  have  voted  down  the  Constitution  if  they  had  got  a  chance,  and 
that  is  the  excuse  for  not  allowing  the  people  to  vote  upon  it.  That  is  an 
admission  that  this  Constitution  is  not  the  act  and  deed  of  the  people  of 
Kansas;  that  it  does  not  embody  their  will;  and  yet  you  are  called  upon 
to  give  it  force  and  vitality;  to  make  it  the  fundamental  law  of  Kansas 
with  a  knowledge  that  it  is  not  the  will  of  the  people,  and  misrepresents 
their  wishes.  I  ask  you,  sir,  where  is  your  right,  under  our  principles  of 
government,  to  force  a  Constitution  upon  an  unwilling  people?  You  may 
resort  to  all  the  evidence  that  you  can  obtain,  from  every  source  that  you 
please,  and  you  are  driven  to  the  same  conclusion. 

If  further  evidence  were  necessary  to  show  that  the  Lecompton  Con 
stitution  is  not  the  will  of  the  people  of  Kansas,  you  find  it  in  the  action 
of  the  Legislature  of  that  Territory.  On  the  first  Monday  in  October  an 
election  took  place  for  members  of  the  Territorial  Legislature.  It  was  a 
severe  struggle  between  the  two  great  parties  in  the  Territory.  On  a  fair 
test,  and  at  the  fairest  election,  as  is  recorded  on  all  hands,  ever  held  in 
the  Territory,  a  Legislature  was  elected.  That  Legislature  came  together 
and  remonstrated,  by  an  overwhelming  majority,  against  this  Constitu 
tion,  as  not  being  the  act  and  deed  of  that  people,  and  not  embodying  their 
will.  Ask  the  late  Governor  of  the  Territory,  and  he  will  tell  you  that  it 
is  a  mockery  to  call  this  the  act  and  deed  of  the  people.  Ask  the  secretary 
of  the  Territory,  ex-Governor  Stanton,  and  he  will  tell  you  the  same  thing. 
I  will  hazard  the  prediction,  that  if  you  ask  Governor  Denver  to-day,  he 
will  tell  you,  if  he  answers  at  all,  that  it  is  a  mockery,  nay,  a  crime,  to  at 
tempt  to  enforce  this  Constitution  as  an  embodiment  of  the  will  of  that 
people.  Ask,  then,  your  official  agents  in  the  Territory;  ask  the  Legisla 
ture  elected  by  the  people  at  the  last  election;  consult  the  poll-books  on 
a  fair  election  held  in  pursuance  of  law;  consult  private  citizens  from 
there;  consult  whatever  sources  of  information  you  please,  and  you  get 
the  same  answer  — that  this  Constitution  does  not  embody  the  public 
will,  is  not  the  act  and  deed  of  the  people,  does  not  represent  their  wishes; 
and  hence  I  deny  your  right,  your  authority,  to  make  it  their  organic  law. 


224  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 

If  the  Lecompton  Constitution  ever  becomes  the  organic  law  of  the  State 
of  Kansas,  it  will  be  the  act  of  Congress  that  makes  it  so,  and  not  the  act 
or  will  of  the  people  of  Kansas. 

This  Constitution  provides  that  after  the  year  1864  it  may  be  changed 
by  the  Legislature  by  a  two-thirds  vote  of  each  House,  submitting  to  the 
people  the  question  whether  they  will  hold  a  convention  for  the  purpose  of 
amending  the  Constitution.  I  hold  that,  when  a  Constitution  provides 
one  time  of  change,  by  every  rule  of  interpretation  it  excludes  all  other 
times;  and  when  it  prescribes  one  mode  of  change,  it  excludes  all  other 
modes.  I  hold  that  it  is  the  fair  intendment  and  interpretation  of  this 
Constitution  that  it  is  not  to  be  changed  until  after  the  year  1864,  and  then 
only  in  the  manner  prescribed  in  the  instrument.  If  it  were  true  that  this 
Constitution  was  the  act  and  deed  of  the  people  of  Kansas  —  if  it  were 
true  that  it  embodied  their  will  —  I  hold  that  such  a  provision  against 
change  for  a  sufficient  length  of  time  to  enable  the  people  to  test  its 
practical  workings  would  be  a  wise  provision,  and  not  liable  to  objection. 
That  people  are  not  capable  of  self-government  who  cannot  make  a  Con 
stitution  under  which  they  are  willing  to  live  for  a  period  of  six  years 
without  change.  I  do  not  object  that  this  Constitution  cannot  be 
changed  until  after  1864,  provided  you  show  me  that  it  be  the  act  and 
deed  of  the  people,  and  embodies  their  will  now.  If  it  be  not  their  act 
and  deed,  you  have  no  right  to  fix  it  upon  them  for  a  day  —  not  for  an 
hour  —  not  for  an  instant ;  for  it  is  a  violation  of  the  great  principle  of  free 
government  to  force  it  upon  them. 

The  President  of  the  United  States  tells  us  that  he  sees  no  objection  to 
inserting  a  clause  in  the  act  of  admission  declaratory  of  the  right  of  the 
people  of  Kansas,  with  the  consent  of  the  first  Legislature,  to  change  this 
Constitution,  notwithstanding  the  provision  which  it  contains  that  it  shall 
not  be  changed  until  after  the  year  1864.  Where  does  Congress  get  power 
to  intervene  and  change  a  provision  in  the  Constitution  of  a  State?  If 
this  Constitution  declares,  as  I  insist  it  does,  that  it  shall  not  be  changed 
until  after  1864,  what  right  has  Congress  to  intervene  to  alter  or  annul 
that  provision  prohibiting  alteration?  If  you  can  annul  one  provision, 
you  may  another,  and  another,  and  another,  until  you  have  destroyed 
the  entire  instrument.  I  deny  your  right  to  annul;  I  deny  your  right  to 
change,  or  even  to  construe  the  meaning  of  a  single  clause  of  this  Constitu 
tion.  If  it  be  the  act  and  deed  of  the  people  of  Kansas,  and  becomes  their 
fundamental  law,  it  is  sacred;  you  have  no  right  to  touch  it,  no  right  to 
construe  it,  no  right  to  determine  its  meaning;  it  is  theirs,  not  yours. 
You  must  take  it  as  it  is,  or  reject  it  as  a  whole ;  but  put  not  your  sacri 
legious  hands  upon  the  instrument  if  it  be  their  act  and  deed.  Whenever 
this  Government  undertakes  to  construe  State  Constitutions  and  to  recog 
nize  the  right  of  the  people  of  a  State  to  act  in  a  different  manner  from 
that  provided  in  their  Constitution;  whenever  it  undertakes  to  give  a 
meaning  to  a  clause  of  a  State  Constitution,  which  that  State  has  not  given ; 
whenever  it  undertakes  to  do  that,  and  its  right  is  acknowledged,  farewell 


APPENDIX  225 

to  State  rights,  farewell  to  State  sovereignty;  your  States  become  mere 
provinces,  dependencies,  with  no  more  independence  and  no  more  rights 
than  the  counties  of  the  different  States.  This  doctrine,  that  Congress 
may  intervene,  and  annul,  construe,  or  change  a  clause  in  a  State  Constitu 
tion,  subverts  the  fundamental  principles  upon  which  our  complex  system 
of  government  rests. 

Upon  this  point,  the  Committee  on  Territories,  in  the  majority  report, 
find  themselves  constrained  to  dissent  from  the  doctrine  of  the  President. 
They  see  no  necessity,  and,  if  I  understand  the  report,  no  legal  authority 
on  the  part  of  Congress  to  intervene  and  construe  this  or  any  other  pro 
vision  of  the  Constitution;  but  the  distinguished  gentleman  who  makes 
the  report  from  the  Committee  on  Territories  has,  in  his  own  estimation, 
obviated  all  objection  by  finding  a  clause  in  the  Constitution  of  Kansas 
which  he  thinks  remedies  the  whole  evil.  It  is  in  the  Bill  of  Rights,  and 
is  in  these  words: 

"All  political  power  is  inherent  in  the  people,  and  all  free  Governments 
are  founded  on  their  authority,  and  instituted  for  their  benefit;  and, 
therefore,  they  have  at  all  times  an  inalienable  and  indefeasible  right  to 
alter,  reform,  or  abolish  their  form  of  government  in  such  a  manner  as 
they  may  think  proper." 

But,  sir,  this  article  from  the  Bill  of  Rights  proves  entirely  too  much. 
The  President  says  you  may  put  into  this  bill  a  clause  recognizing  the  right 
of  the  people  of  Kansas  to  change  their  Constitution  by  the  consent  of  the 
first  Legislature.  What  does  the  Bill  of  Rights  say?  That  it  is  the  ina 
lienable  and  indefeasible  right  of  the  people,  at  all  times,  to  alter,  abolish, 
or  reform  their  form  of  government  in  such  manner  as  they  may  think 
proper,  not  in  such  manner  as  the  Legislature  shall  prescribe,  nor  at  such 
time  as  the  legislative  authority  or  the  existing  government  may  provide, 
but  in  such  manner  as  the  people  think  proper  in  town  meeting,  in  conven 
tion,  through  the  Legislature,  in  popular  assemblages,  at  the  point  of  the 
bayonet,  in  any  manner  the  people  themselves  may  determine.  That  is 
the  right  and  the  nature  of  the  right  authorized  by  this  Bill  of  Rights. 
It  is  the  revolutionary  remedy,  not  the  lawful  mode.  There  are  two  modes 
of  changing  the  Constitution  of  a  State  —  one  lawful,  the  other  revolu 
tionary.  The  lawful  mode  is  the  one  prescribed  in  the  instrument.  The 
revolutionary  mode  is  one  in  violation  of  the  instrument.  The  revolutionary 
mode  may  be  peaceful  or  may  be  forcible ;  that  depends  on  whether  there 
is  resistance.  If  a  people  are  unanimous  in  favor  of  a  change,  if  nobody 
opposes  it,  the  revolutionary  means  may  be  a  peaceful  remedy;  but  if, 
in  the  progress  of  the  revolution,  while  you  are  making  the  change,  you 
meet  with  resistance,  then  it  becomes  civil  war,  treason,  rebellion,  if  you 
fail,  and  a  successful  revolution  if  you  succeed. 

I  say,  then,  the  mode  pointed  out  in  the  Bill  of  Rights  is  the  revolution 
ary  mode,  and  not  the  lawful  means  provided  in  the  instrument;  but 
if  the  Committee  on  Territories  be  right  in  saying  that  this  is  a  lawful 
mode,  then  the  recommendation  of  the  President,  that  Congress  should 

15 


226  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 

recognize  the  right  to  do  it  by  the  first  Legislature,  violates  this  Con 
stitution.  Why?  The  President  recommends  us  to  recognize  their  rights 
through  the  Legislature,  and  in  that  mode  alone.  The  Bill  of  Rights 
says  the  people  shall  do  it  in  such  manner  as  they  please.  If  the  con 
struction  given  by  the  Committee  on  Territories  be  right,  you  dare  not 
vote  for  the  President's  proposition  to  recognize  the  right  of  the  first 
Legislature  to  do  it,  for  you  give  a  construction  to  the  instrument  in  vio 
lation  of  its  terms. 

Mr.  President,  I  come  back  to  the  question,  Ought  we  to  receive  Kansas 
into  the  Union  with  the  Lecompton  Constitution?  Is  there  satisfactory 
evidence  that  it  is  the  act  and  deed  of  that  people  —  that  it  embodies 
their  will?  Is  the  evidence  satisfactory  that  the  people  of  that  Territory 
have  been  left  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic  institu 
tions  in  their  own  way?  I  think  not.  I  do  not  acknowledge  the  propriety, 
or  justice,  or  force  of  that  special  pleading  which  attempts,  by  technicali 
ties,  to  fasten  a  Constitution  upon  a  people  which,  it  is  admitted,  they 
would  have  voted  down  if  they  had  had  a  chance  to  do  so,  and  which  does 
not  embody  their  will.  Let  me  ask  gentlemen  from  the  South,  if  the  case 
had  been  reversed,  would  they  have  taken  the  same  view  of  the  subject? 
Suppose  it  were  ascertained,  beyond  doubt  or  cavil,  that  three-fourths  of 
the  people  of  Kansas  were  in  favor  of  a  slaveholding  State,  and  a  conven 
tion  had  been  assembled  by  just  such  means  and  under  just  such  circum 
stances  as  brought  the  Lecompton  Convention  together;  and  suppose 
that  when  it  assembled  it  was  ascertained  that  three-fourths  of  the  con 
vention  were  Free-soilers,  while  three-fourths  of  the  people  were  in  favor 
of  a  slaveholding  State;  suppose  an  election  took  place  in  the  Territory 
during  the  sitting  of  the  convention,  which  developed  the  fact  that  the 
convention  did  not  represent  the  people ;  suppose  that  convention  of  Free- 
soilers  had  proceeded  to  make  a  Constitution  and  allowed  the  people  to 
vote  for  it,  but  not  against  it,  and  thus  forced  a  Free-soil  Constitution 
upon  a  slaveholding  people  against  their  will  —  would  you,  gentlemen 
from  the  South,  have  submitted  to  the  outrage?  Would  you  have  come 
up  here  and  demanded  that  the  Free-soil  Constitution,  adopted  at  an 
election  where  all  the  affirmative  votes  were  received,  and  all  the  nega 
tive  votes  rejected,  for  the  reason  that  it  would  have  been  voted  down  if 
the  negative  votes  had  been  received,  should  be  accepted?  Would  you 
have  said  that  it  was  fair,  that  it  was  honest,  to  force  an  Abolition  Con 
stitution  on  a  slaveholding  people  against  their  will  ?  Would  you  not  have 
come  forward  and  have  said  to  us  that  you  denied  that  it  was  the  embodi 
ment  of  the  public  will,  and  demanded  that  it  should  be  sent  back  to  the 
people  to  be  voted  upon,  so  as  to  ascertain  the  fact?  Would  you  not  have 
said  to  us  that  you  were  willing  to  live  up  to  the  principle  of  the  Nebraska 
bill,  to  leave  the  people  perfectly  free  to  form  such  institutions  as  they 
please;  and  that,  if  we  would  only  send  that  Constitution  back  and  let 
the  people  have  a  fair  vote  upon  it,  you  would  abide  the  result?  Suppose 
\ve,  being  a  Northern  majority,  had  said  to  you,  "No;  we  have  secured 


APPENDIX  227 

a  sectional  advantage,  and  we  intend  to  hold  it ;  and  we  will  force  this  Con 
stitution  upon  an  unwilling  people  merely  because  we  have  the  power  to 
do  it";  would  you  have  said  that  was  fair? 

If  you  admit  Kansas  with  the  Lecompton  Constitution,  you  also  admit 
her  with  the  State  Government  which  has  been  brought  into  existence 
under  it.  Is  the  evidence  satisfactory  that  that  State  Government  has 
been  fairly  and  honestly  elected?  Is  the  evidence  satisfactory  that  the 
elections  were  fairly  and  honestly  held,  and  fairly  and  honestly  returned? 
You  have  all  seen  the  evidence  showing  the  fraudulent  voting;  the  forged 
returns,  from  precinct  after  precinct,  changing  the  result  not  only  upon 
the  legislative  ticket,  but  also  upon  the  ticket  for  Governor  and  State 
officers.  The  false  returns  in  regard  to  Delaware  Crossing,  changing  the 
complexion  of  the  Legislature,  are  admitted.  The  evidence  is  equally 
conclusive  as  to  the  Shawnee  precinct,  the  Oxford  precinct,  the  Kickapoo 
precinct,  and  many  others,  making  a  difference  of  some  three  thousand 
votes  in  the  general  aggregate,  and  changing  the  whole  result  of  the  elec 
tion.  Yet,  sir,  we  are  called  upon  to  admit  Kansas  with  the  State  Govern 
ment  thus  brought  into  existence  not  only  by  fraudulent  voting,  but 
forged  returns,  sustained  by  perjury.  The  Senate  well  recollects  the 
efforts  that  I  made  before  the  subject  was  referred  to  the  committee,  and 
since,  to  ascertain  to  whom  the  certificates  of  election  were  awarded,  that 
we  might  know  whether  they  were  given  to  the  men  honestly  elected,  or 
to  the  men  whose  elections  depended  upon  forgery  and  perjury.  Can 
any  one  tell  me  now  to  whom  those  certificates  have  been  issued,  if  they 
have  been  issued  at  all?  Can  any  man  tell  me  whether  we  are  installing, 
by  receiving  this  State  Government,  officers  whose  sole  title  depends  upon 
forgery,  or  those  whose  title  depends  upon  popular  votes?  We  have  been 
calling  for  that  information  for  about  three  months,  but  we  have  called 
in  vain.  One  day  the  rumor  would  be  that  Mr.  Calhoun  would  declare  the 
free-state  ticket  elected,  and  next  day  that  he  would  declare  the  pro- 
slavery  ticket  elected.  So  it  has  alternated,  like  the  chills  and  fever,  day 
after  day,  until  within  the  last  three  days,  when  the  action  of  Congress 
became  a  little  dubious,  when  it  was  doubtful  whether  Northern  men  were 
willing  to  vote  for  a  State  Government  depending  upon  forgery  and  per 
jury,  and  then  we  find  that  the  president  of  the  Lecompton  convention 
addresses  a  letter  to  the  editor  of  The  Star,  a  newspaper  in  this  city,  tell 
ing  what  he  thinks  is  the  result  of  the  election.  He  says  it  is  true  that  he 
has  received  no  answer  to  his  letters  of  inquiry  to  Governor  Denver;  he 
has  no  official  information  on  the  subject;  but,  from  rumors  and  unofficial 
information,  he  is  now  satisfied  that  the  Delaware  Crossing  return  was 
a  fraud;  that  it  will  be  set  aside;  and  that,  accordingly,  the  result  will 
be  that  certificates  will  be  issued  to  the  free-state  men.  I  do  not  mean  to 
deny  that  Mr.  Calhoun  may  think  such  will  be  the  result ;  but,  while  he 
may  think  so,  I  would  rather  know  how  the  fact  is.  His  thoughts  are 
i  not  important,  but  the  fact  is  vital  in  establishing  the  honesty  or  dis 
honesty  of  the  State  Government  which  we  are  about  to  recognize.  It 


228  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

so  happens  that  Mr.  Calhoun  has  no  more  power,  no  more  authority 
over  that  question  now  than  the  senator  from  Missouri,  or  any  other 
member  of  this  body.  The  celebrated  Lecompton  schedule  provides  that, 

"  In  case  of  removal,  ABSENCE,  or  disability  of  the  president  of  this 
convention  to  discharge  the  duties  herein  imposed  on  him,  the  president 
pro  tempore  of  this  convention  shall  perform  said  duties;  and  in  case  of 
absence,  refusal,  or  disability  of  the  president  pro  tempore,  a  committee 
consisting  of  seven,  or  a  majority  of  them,  shall  discharge  the  duties  re 
quired  of  the  president  of  this  convention." 

As  Mr.  Calhoun  is  absent  from  the  Territory,  and,  by  reason  of  that 
absence,  is  deprived  of  all  authority  over  the  subject-matter,  and  as  the 
president  pro  tempore  has  succeeded  to  his  powers,  is  it  satisfactory  for  the 
deposed  president  to  address  a  letter  to  the  editor  of  The  Star  announcing 
his  private  opinion  as  to  who  has  been  elected?  I  should  like  to  know 
who  the  president  pro  tempore  is,  and  where  he  is ;  and  if  he  is  in  Kansas, 
whether  he  has  arrived  at  the  same  conclusion  which  the  ex-president 
Calhoun  has  announced.  I  should  like  to  know  whether  that  president 
pro  tempore  has  already  issued  his  certificate  to  the  pro-slavery  men  in 
Kansas,  while  Mr.  Calhoun  expresses  the  opinion  in  The  Star  that  the  cer 
tificates  will  be  issued  to  the  free-state  men  ?  If  that  president  pro  tempore 
has  become  a  fugitive  from  justice,  and  escaped  from  the  Territory,  I 
should  like  then  to  know  who  are  the  committee  of  seven  that  were  to  take 
his  place;  and  whether  they,  or  a  majority  of  them,  have  arrived  at  the 
same  conclusion  to  which  Mr.  Calhoun  has  come  ?  Inasmuch  as  this  opinion 
is  published  to  the  world  just  before  the  vote  is  to  be  taken  here,  and  is 
expected  to  catch  the  votes  of  some  green  members  of  one  body  or  the 
other,  I  should  like  to  know  whether  certificates  have  been  issued?  and, 
if  so,  by  whom,  and  to  whom?  where  the  president  pro  tempore  is?  where 
the  committee  of  seven  may  be  found?  and  then  we  might  know  who 
constitute  the  Legislature,  and  who  constitute  the  State  Government 
which  we  are  to  bring  into  being.  We  are  not  only  to  admit  Kansas  with 
a  Constitution,  but  with  a  State  Government ;  with  a  Governor,  a  Legisla 
ture,  a  judiciary;  with  executive,  legislative,  judicial,  and  ministerial 
officers.  Inasmuch  as  we  are  told  by  the  President  that  the  first  Legisla 
ture  may  take  steps  to  call  a  convention  to  change  the  Constitution,  I 
should  like  to  know  of  whom  that  Legislature  is  composed?  Inasmuch 
as  the  Governor  would  have  the  power  to  veto  an  act  of  the  Legislature 
calling  a  convention,  I  should  like  to  know  who  is  Governor,  so  that  I 
may  judge  whether  he  would  veto  such  an  act?  Cannot  our  good  friends 
get  the  president  pro  tempore  of  the  convention  to  write  a  letter  to  The 
Star?  Can  they  not  procure  a  letter  from  the  committee  of  seven?  Can 
they  not  clear  up  this  mystery,  and  relieve  our  suspicious  minds  of  any 
thing  unfair  or  foul  in  the  arrangement  of  this  matter?  Let  us  know  how 
the  fact  is. 

This  publication  of  itself  is  calculated  to  create  more  apprehension  than 
there  was  before.  As  long  as  Mr,  Calhoun  took  the  ground  that  he  would 
never  declare  the  result  until  Lecompton  was  admitted,  and  that,  if  it  waa 


APPENDIX  229 

not  admitted,  he  would  never  make  the  decision,  there  seemed  to  be  some 
reason  in  his  course;  but  when,  after  taking  that  ground  for  months,  it 
became  understood  that  Lecompton  was  dead,  or  was  lingering  and  lan 
guishing,  and  likely  to  die,  and  when  a  few  more  votes  were  necessary, 
and  a  pretext  was  necessary  to  be  given  in  order  to  secure  them,  we  find 
this  letter  published  by  the  deposed  ex-president,  giving  his  opinion  when 
he  had  no  power  over  the  subject;  and  when  it  appears  by  the  Constitu 
tion  itself  that  another  man  or  another  body  of  men  has  the  decision  in 
their  hands,  it  is  calculated  to  arouse  our  suspicions  as  to  what  the  result 
will  be  after  Lecompton  is  admitted. 

Mr.  President,  in  the  course  of  the  debate  on  this  bill,  before  I  was  com 
pelled  to  absent  myself  from  the  Senate  on  account  of  sickness  (and  I  pre 
sume  the  same  has  been  the  case  during  my  absence),  much  was  said  on 
the  slavery  question  in  connection  with  the  admission  of  Kansas.  Many 
gentlemen  have  labored  to  produce  the  impression  that  the  whole  opposi 
tion  to  the  admission  arises  out  of  the  fact  that  the  Lecompton  Constitu 
tion  makes  Kansas  a  slave  State.  I  am  sure  that  no  gentleman  here  will 
do  me  the  injustice  to  assert  or  suppose  that  my  opposition  is  predicated 
on  that  consideration,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  my  speech  against  the  ad 
mission  of  Kansas  under  the  Lecompton  Constitution  was  made  on  the 
ninth  of  December,  two  weeks  before  the  vote  was  taken  upon  the  slavery 
clause  in  Kansas,  and  when  the  general  impression  was  that  the  pro- 
slavery  clause  would  be  excluded.  I  predicated  my  opposition  then,  as 
I  do  now,  upon  the  ground  that  it  was  a  violation  of  the  fundamental 
principles  of  government,  a  violation  of  popular  sovereignty,  a  violation 
of  the  Democratic  platform,  a  violation  of  all  party  platforms,  and  a  fatal 
blow  to  the  independence  of  the  new  States.  I  told  you  then,  that  you  had 
no  more  right  to  force  a  free-state  Constitution  upon  a  people  against  their 
will,  than  you  had  to  force  a  slave-state  Constitution.  Will  gentlemen  say, 
that,  on  the  other  side,  slavery  has  no  influence  in  producing  that  united, 
almost  unanimous  support  which  we  find  from  gentlemen  living  in  one 
section  of  the  Union  in  favor  of  the  Lecompton  Constitution?  If  slavery 
had  nothing  to  do  with  it,  would  there  have  been  so  much  hesitation  about 
Mr.  Calhoun's  declaring  the  result  of  the  election  prior  to  the  vote  in  Con 
gress?  I  submit,  then,  whether  we  ought  not  to  discard  the  slavery  ques 
tion  altogether,  and  approach  the  real  question  before  us  fairly,  calmly, 
dispassionately,  and  decide  whether,  but  for  the  slavery  clause,  this  Le 
compton  Constitution  could  receive  a  single  vote  in  either  house  of  Congress. 
Were  it  not  for  the  slavery  clause,  would  there  be  any  objection  to  sending 
it  back  to  the  people  for  a  vote  ?  Were  it  not  for  the  slavery  clause,  would 
there  be  any  objection  to  letting  Kansas  wait  until  she  had  ninety  thou 
sand  people,  instead  of  coming  into  the  Union  with  not  over  forty-five  or 
fifty  thousand?  Were  it  not  for  the  slavery  question,  would  Kansas  have 
occupied  any  considerable  portion  of  our  thoughts?  would  it  have  divided 
and  distracted  political  parties  so  as  to  create  bitter  and  acrimonious 
feelings  ?  I  say,  now,  to  our  Southern  friends,  that  I  will  act,  on  this  ques 
tion  on  the  right  of  the  people  to  decide  for  themselves,  irrespective  of  the 


230  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

fact  whether  they  decide  for  or  against  slavery,  provided  it  be  submitted 
to  a  fair  vote  at  a  fair  election,  and  with  honest  returns. 

In  this  connection  there  is  another  topic  to  which  I  desire  to  allude.  I 
seldom  refer  to  the  course  of  newspapers,  or  notice  the  articles  which  they 
publish  in  regard  to  myself ;  but  the  course  of  The  Washington  Union  has 
been  so  extraordinary  for  the  last  two  or  three  months,  that  I  think  it 
well  enough  to  make  some  allusion  to  it.  It  has  read  me  out  of  the  Demo 
cratic  party  every  other  day,  at  least,  for  two  or  three  months,  and  keeps 
reading  me  out;  and,  as  if  it  had  not  succeeded,  still  continues  to  read 
me  out,  using  such  terms  as  "traitor,"  "renegade,"  "deserter,"  and  other 
kind  and  polite  epithets  of  that  nature.  Sir,  I  have  no  vindication  to  make 
of  my  Democracy  against  The  Washington  Union,  or  any  other  newspaper. 
I  am  willing  to  allow  my  history  and  action  for  the  last  twenty  years  to 
speak  for  themselves  as  to  my  political  principles  and  my  fidelity  to  political 
obligations.  The  Washington  Union  has  a  personal  grievance.  When  its 
editor  was  nominated  for  public  printer  I  declined  to  vote  for  him,  and 
stated  that  at  some  time  I  might  give  my  reasons  for  doing  so.  Since  I 
declined  to  give  that  vote,  this  scurrilous  abuse,  these  vindictive  and  con 
stant  attacks,  have  been  repeated  almost  daily  on  me.  Will  my  friend 
from  Michigan  read  the  article  to  which  I  allude  ? 

[Mr.  Stuart  read  the  editorial  article  from  The  Washington  Union  of 
November  17,  1857.] 

Mr.  Douglas.  Mr.  President,  you  here  find  several  distinct  propositions 
advanced  boldly  by  The  Washington  Union  editorially  and  apparently 
authoritatively,  and  every  man  who  questions  any  of  them  is  denounced 
as  an  Abolitionist,  a  Free-soiler,  a  fanatic.  The  propositions  are,  first, 
that  the  primary  object  of  all  government  at  its  original  institution  is  the 
protection  of  person  and  property;  second,  that  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  declares  that  the  citizens  of  each  State  shall  be  entitled 
to  all  the  privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens  in  the  several  States;  and 
that,  therefore,  thirdly,  all  State  laws,  whether  organic  or  otherwise,  which 
prohibit  the  citizens  of  one  State  from  settling  in  another  with  their  slave 
property,  and  especially  declaring  it  forfeited,  are  direct  violations  of  the 
original  intention  of  the  Government  and  Constitution  of  the  United 
States;  and,  fourth,  that  the  emancipation  of  the  slaves  of  the  Northern 
States  was  a  gross  outrage  on  the  rights  of  property,  inasmuch  as  it  was 
involuntarily  done  on  the  part  of  the  owners. 

Remember  that  this  article  was  published  in  The  Union  on  the  seven 
teenth  of  November,  and  on  the  eighteenth  appeared  the  first  article  giving 
the  adhesion  of  The  Union  to  the  Lecompton  Constitution. 

The  proposition  is  advanced  that  the  emancipation  acts  of  New  York, 
of  New  England,  of  Pennsylvania,  and  of  New  Jersey,  were  unconstitu 
tional,  were  outrages  upon  the  right  of  property,  were  violations  of  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States.  The  proposition  is  advanced  that  a 
Southern  man  has  a  right  to  move  from  South  Carolina,  with  his  negroes, 
into  Illinois,  to  settle  there  and  hold  them  there1  as  slaves,  anything  in 


APPENDIX  231 

the  Constitution  and  laws  of  Illinois  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding. 
The  proposition  is,  that  a  citizen  of  Virginia  has  rights  in  a  free  State  which 
a  citizen  of  a  free  State  cannot  himself  have.  We  prohibit  ourselves  from 
holding  slaves  within  our  own  limits,  and  yet,  according  to  this  doctrine, 
a  citizen  of  Kentucky  can  move  into  our  State,  bring  in  one  hundred  slaves 
with  him,  and  hold  them  as  such  in  defiance  of  the  Constitution  and  laws 
of  our  own  State.  If  that  proposition  is  true,  the  creed  of  the  Democratic 
party  is  false.  The  principle  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  is,  that  "each 
State  and  each  Territory  shall  be  left  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate 
its  domestic  institutions  in  its  own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States."  I  claim  that  Illinois  has  the  sovereign  right  to  pro 
hibit  slavery,  a  right  as  undeniable  as  that  the  sovereignty  of  Virginia 
may  authorize  its  existence.  We  have  the  same  right  to  prohibit  it  that 
you  have  to  recognize  and  protect  it.  Each  State  is  sovereign  within  its 
own  sphere  of  powers,  sovereign  in  respect  to  its  own  domestic  and  local 
institutions  and  internal  concerns.  So  long  as  you  regulate  your  local 
institutions  to  suit  yourselves,  we  are  content;  but  when  you  claim  the 
right  to  override  our  laws  and  our  Constitution,  and  deny  our  right  to  form 
our  institutions  to  suit  ourselves,  I  protest  against  it.  The  same  doctrine 
is  asserted  in  this  Lecompton  Constitution.  There  it  is  stated  that  the 
right  of  property  in  slaves  is  "before  and  higher  than  any  constitutional 
sanction." 

Mr.  President,  I  recognize  the  right  of  the  slaveholding  States  to  regu 
late  their  local  institutions,  to  claim  the  services  of  their  slaves  under  their 
own  State  laws,  and  I  am  prepared  to  perform  each  and  every  one  of  my 
obligations  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  in  respect  to  them  ; 
but  I  do  not  admit,  and  I  do  not  think  they  are  safe  in  asserting,  that  their 
right  of  property  in  slaves  is  higher  than  and  above  constitutional  sanc 
tion,  is  independent  of  constitutional  obligations.  When  you  rely  upon 
the  Constitution  and  upon  your  own  laws,  you  are  safe.  When  you  go 
beyond  and  above  constitutional  obligations,  I  know  not  where  your 
safety  is.  If  this  doctrine  be  true,  that  slavery  is  higher  than  the  Constitu 
tion,  and  above  the  Constitution,  it  necessarily  follows  that  a  State  can 
not  abolish  it,  cannot  prohibit  it,  and  the  doctrine  of  The  Washington 
Union,  that  the  emancipation  laws  were  outrages  on  the  rights  of  property 
and  violations  of  the  Constitution,  becomes  the  law. 

When  I  saw  that  article  in  The  Union  of  the  seventeenth  of  November, 
followed  by  the  glorification  of  the  Lecompton  Constitution  on  the  eigh 
teenth  of  November,  and  this  clause  in  the  Constitution  asserting  the  doc 
trine  that  no  State  has  a  right  to  prohibit  slavery  within  its  limits,  I  saw 
that  there  was  a  fatal  blow  being  struck  at  the  sovereignty  of  the  States 
of  this  Union,  a  death-blow  to  State  rights,  subversive  of  the  Democratic 
platform  and  of  the  principles  upon  which  the  Democratic  party  have  ever 
stood,  and  upon  which  I  trust  they  ever  will  stand.  Because  of  these  ex 
traordinary  doctrines,  I  declined  to  vote  for  the  editor  of  The  Washington 
Union  for  public  printer,  and  for  that  refusal,  as  I  suppose,  I  have  been 
read  out  of  the  party  by  the  editor  of  The  Union  at  least  every  other  day 


232  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

from  that  time  to  this.  Sir,  I  submit  the  question :  Who  has  deserted  the 
Democratic  party  and  the  Democratic  platform  —  he  who  stands  by  the 
sovereign  rights  of  the  State  to  abolish  and  prohibit  slavery  as  it  pleases, 
or  he  who  attempts  to  strike  down  the  sovereignty  of  the  States,  and  com 
bine  all  power  in  one  central  Government,  and  establish  an  empire  instead 
of  a  confederacy? 

The  principles  upon  which  the  Presidential  campaign  of  1856  was  fought 
are  well  known  to  the  country.  At  least  in  Illinois  I  think  I  am  authorized 
to  state  that  they  were  with  clearness  and  precision,  so  far  as  the  slavery 
question  is  concerned.  The  Democracy  of  Illinois  are  prepared  to  stand 
on  the  platform  upon  which  the  battle  of  1856  was  fought.  It  was, 

First.  The  migration  or  importation  of  negroes  into  the  country  hav 
ing  been  prohibited  since  1808,  never  again  to  be  renewed,  each  State  will 
take  care  of  its  own  colored  population. 

Second.  That  while  negroes  are  not  citizens  of  the  United  States,  and 
hence  not  entitled  to  political  equality  with  whites,  they  should  enjoy  all 
the  rights,  privileges,  and  immunities  which  they  are  capable  of  exercising, 
consistent  with  the  safety  and  welfare  of  the  community  where  they  live. 

Third.  That  each  State  and  Territory  must  judge  and  determine  for 
itself  of  the  nature  and  extent  of  its  rights  and  privileges. 

Fourth.  That  while  each  free  State  should  and  will  maintain  and  pro 
tect  all  the  rights  of  the  slaveholding  States,  they  will,  each  for  itself,  main 
tain  and  defend  its  sovereign  right  within  its  own  limits  to  form  and  regu 
late  their  own  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

Fifth.  That  in  the  language  of  Mr.  Buchanan's  letter  of  acceptance  of 
the  Presidential  nomination,  the  Nebraska-Kansas  Act  does  no  more  than 
give  the  form  of  law  to  this  elementary  principle  of  self-government  when 
it  declares  "that  the  people  of  a  Territory,  like  those  of  a  State,  shall  de 
cide  for  themselves  whether  slavery  shall  or  shall  not  exist  within  their 
limits." 

These  were  the  general  propositions  on  which  we  maintained  the  canvass 
on  the  slavery  question  —  the  right  of  each  State  to  decide  for  itself ;  that 
a  negro  should  have  such  rights  as  he  was  capable  of  enjoying,  and  could 
enjoy,  consistently  with  the  safety  and  welfare  of  society;  and  that  each 
State  should  decide  for  itself  the  nature,  and  extent,  and  description  of 
those  rights  and  privileges.  Hence,  if  you  choose  in  North  Carolina  to 
have  slaves,  it  is  your  business,  and  not  ours.  If  we  choose  in  Illi 
nois  to  prohibit  slavery,  it  is  our  right,  and  you  must  not  interfere 
with  it.  If  New  York  chooses  to  give  privileges  to  the  negro  which  we 
withhold,  it  is  her  right  to  extend  them,  but  she  must  not  attempt  to  force 
us  to  do  the  same  thing.  Let  each  State  take  care  of  its  own  affairs,  mind 
its  own  business,  and  let  its  neighbors  alone,  then  there  will  be  peace  in 
the  country.  Whenever  you  attempt  to  enforce  uniformity,  and,  judging 
that  a  peculiar  institution  is  good  for  you,  and  therefore  good  for  every 
body  else,  try  to  enforce  it  on  everybody,  you  will  find  that  there  will  be 
resistance  to  the  demand.  Our  Government  was  not  formed  on  the  idea 


APPENDIX  233 

that  there  was  to  be  uniformity  of  local  laws  or  local  institutions.  It  was 
founded  upon  the  supposition  that  there  must  be  diversity  and  variety 
in  the  institutions  and  laws.  Our  fathers  foresaw  that  the  local  institu 
tions  which  would  suit  the  granite  hills  of  New  Hampshire  w^ould  be  ill 
adapted  to  the  rice  plantations  of  South  Carolina.  They  foresaw  that 
the  institutions  which  would  be  well  adapted  to  the  mountains  and  valleys 
of  Pennsylvania  would  not  suit  the  plantation  interests  of  Virginia.  They 
foresaw  that  the  great  diversity  of  climate,  of  production,  of  interests, 
would  require  a  corresponding  diversity  of  local  laws  and  local  institutions. 
For  this  reason  they  provided  for  thirteen  separate  States,  each  with  a 
separate  Legislature,  and  each  State  sovereign  within  its  own  sphere,  with 
the  right  to  make  all  its  local  laws  and  local  institutions  to  suit  itself,  on 
the  supposition  that  they  would  be  as  different  and  as  diversified  as  the 
number  of  States  themselves.  Then  the  general  Government  was  made, 
with  a  Congress  having  limited  and  specified  powers,  extending  only  to 
those  subjects  which  were  national  and  not  local,  which  were  federal  and 
not  State. 

I  do  not  recognize  the  right  of  the  President  or  his  cabinet,  no  matter 
what  my  respect  may  be  for  them,  to  tell  me  my  duty  in  the  Senate  Cham 
ber.  The  President  has  his  duties  to  perform  under  the  Constitution,  and 
he  is  responsible  to  his  constituency.  A  senator  has  his  duties  to  perform 
here  under  the  Constitution  and  according  to  his  oath,  and  he  is  responsi 
ble  to  the  sovereign  State  which  he  represents  as  his  constituency.  A 
member  of  the  House  of  Representatives  has  his  duties  under  the  Con 
stitution  and  his  oath,  and  he  is  responsible  to  the  people  that  elected  him. 
The  President  has  no  more  right  to  prescribe  tests  to  senators  than  senators 
have  to  the  President;  the  President  has  no  more  right  to  prescribe  tests 
to  the  representatives  than  the  representatives  have  to  the  President. 
Suppose  we  here  should  attempt  to  prescribe  a  test  of  faith  to  the  Presi 
dent  of  the  United  States,  would  he  not  rebuke  our  impertinence  and  im 
pudence  as  subversive  of  the  fundamental  principle  of  the  Constitution? 
Would  he  not  tell  us  that  the  Constitution,  and  his  oath,  and  his  conscience 
were  his  guides;  that  we  must  perform  our  duties,  and  he  would  perform 
his,  and  let  each  be  responsible  to  his  own  constituency? 

Sir,  whenever  the  time  comes  that  the  President  of  the  United  States 
can  change  the  allegiance  of  the  senators  from  the  States  to  himself,  what 
becomes  of  the  sovereignty  of  the  States?  When  the  time  comes  that  a 
senator  is  to  account  to  the  executive  and  not  to  his  State,  whom  does  he 
represent  ?  If  the  will  of  my  State  is  one  way  and  the  will  of  the  President 
is  the  other,  am  I  to  be  told  that  I  must  obey  the  executive  and  betray  my 
State,  or  else  be  branded  as  a  traitor  to  the  party,  and  hunted  down  by  all 
the  newspapers  that  share  the  patronage  of  the  Government?  and  every 
man  who  holds  a  petty  office  in  any  part  of  my  State  to  have  the  question 
put  to  him,  "Are  you  Douglas's  enemy?  If  not,  your  head  comes  off"? 
Why?  "  Because  he  is  a  recreant  senator;  because  he  chooses  to  follow 
his  judgment  and  his  conscience,  and  represent  his  State  instead  of  obeying 


234  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 

my  executive  behest."  I  should  like  to  know  what  is  the  use  of  Congresses ; 
what  is  the  use  of  Senates  and  Houses  of  Representatives,  when  their 
highest  duty  is  to  obey  the  executive  in  disregard  of  the  wishes,  rights, 
and  honor  of  their  constituents?  What  despotism  on  earth  would  be  equal 
to  this,  if  you  establish  the  doctrine  that  the  executive  has  a  right  to  com 
mand  the  votes,  the  consciences,  the  judgment  of  the  senators  and  of  the 
representatives,  instead  of  their  constituents?  In  old  England,  whose 
oppressions  we  thought  intolerable,  an  administration  is  hurled  from  power 
in  an  hour  when  voted  down  by  the  representatives  of  the  people  upon  a 
Government  measure.  If  the  rule  of  old  England  applied  here,  this  cabinet 
would  have  gone  out  of  office  when  the  Army  Bill  was  voted  down,  the 
other  day,  in  the  House  of  Representatives.  There,  in  that  monarchical 
country,  where  they  have  a  queen  by  divine  right,  and  lords  by  the  grace 
of  God,  and  where  Republicanism  is  supposed  to  have  but  a  slight  foot 
hold,  the  representatives  of  the  people  can  check  the  throne,  restrain  the 
Government,  change  the  ministry,  and  give  a  new  direction  to  the  policy 
of  the  Government,  without  being  accountable  to  the  King  or  the  Queen. 
There  the  representatives  of  the  people  are  responsible  to  their  consti 
tuents.  Across  the  Channel,  under  Louis  Napoleon,  it  may  be  otherwise; 
yet  I  doubt  whether  it  would  be  so  boldly  proclaimed  there  that  a  man 
is  a  traitor  for  daring  to  vote  according  to  his  sense  of  duty,  according  to 
the  will  of  his  State,  according  to  the  interests  of  his  constituents. 

For  my  own  part,  Mr.  President,  come  what  may,  I  intend  to  vote, 
speak,  and  act  according  to  my  own  sense  of  duty  so  long  as  I  hold  a  seat 
in  this  chamber.  I  stand  firmly,  immovably  upon  those  great  principles 
of  self-government  and  State  sovereignty  upon  which  the  campaign  was 
fought  and  the  election  won.  I  stand  by  the  time-honored  principles  of 
the  Democratic  party,  illustrated  by  Jefferson  and  Jackson  —  those  prin 
ciples  of  State  rights,  of  State  sovereignty,  of  strict  construction,  on  which 
the  great  Democratic  party  has  ever  stood.  I  will  stand  by  the  Constitu 
tion  of  the  United  States,  with  all  its  compromises,  and  perform  all  my 
obligations  under  it.  I  will  stand  by  the  American  Union  as  it  exists  under 
the  Constitution.  If,  standing  firmly  by  my  principles,  I  shall  be  driven 
into  private  life,  it  is  a  fate  that  has  no  terrors  for  me.  I  prefer  private 
life,  preserving  my  own  self-respect  and  manhood,  to  abject  and  servile 
submission  to  executive  will.  If  the  alternative  be  private  life  or  servile 
obedience  to  executive  will,  I  am  prepared  to  retire.  Official  position  has 
no  charms  for  me  when  deprived  of  that  freedom  of  thought  and  action 
which  becomes  a  gentleman  and  a  senator. 


LETTER  TO  GOVERNOR  MATTESON  ON   INTERNAL 
IMPROVEMENTS 

WASHINGTON,  January  2d,  1854. 

gm>  —  I  learn  from  the  public  press  that  you  have  under  consideration 
the  proposition  to  convene  the  Legislature  in  special  session.  In  the  event 
such  a  step  shall  be  demanded  by  the  public  voice  and  necessities,  I  desire 
to  invite  your  attention  to  a  subject  of  great  interest  to  our  people,  which 
may  require  legislative  action.  I  refer  to  the  establishment  of  some  effi 
cient  and  permanent  system  for  river  and  harbor  improvements.  Those 
portions  of  the  Union  most  deeply  interested  in  internal  navigation  nat 
urally  feel  that  their  interests  have  been  neglected,  if  not  paralyzed,  by 
an  uncertain,  vacillating,  and  partial  policy.  Those  who  reside  upon  the 
banks  of  the  Mississippi,  or  on  the  shores  of  the  great  Northern  Lakes, 
and  whose  lives  and  property  are  frequently  exposed  to  the  mercy  of  the 
elements  for  want  of  harbors  of  refuge  and  means  of  safety,  have  never 
been  able  to  comprehend  the  force  of  that  distinction  between  fresh  and 
salt  water,  which  affirms  the  power  and  duty  of  Congress,  under  the  Con 
stitution,  to  provide  security  to  navigation  so  far  as  the  tide  ebbs  and 
flows,  and  denies  the  existence  of  the  right  beyond  the  tidal  mark.  Our 
lawyers  may  have  read  in  English  books  that,  by  the  common  law,  all 
waters  were  deemed  navigable  so  far  as  the  tide  extended  and  no  farther; 
but  they  should  also  have  learned  from  the  same  authority  that  the  law 
was  founded  upon  reason,  and  where  the  reason  failed  the  rule  ceased  to 
exist.  In  England,  where  they  have  neither  lake  nor  river,  nor  other 
water  which  is,  in  fact,  navigable,  except  where  the  tide  rolls  its  briny 
wave,  it  was  natural  that  the  law  should  conform  to  the  fact,  and  estab 
lish  that  as  a  rule  which  the  experience  of  all  men  proved  to  be  founded 
in  truth  and  reason.  But  it  may  well  be  questioned  whether,  if  the  common 
law  had  originated  on  the  shores  of  Lake  Michigan  —  a  vast  inland  sea 
with  an  average  depth  of  six  hundred  feet  —  it  would  have  been  deemed 
"not  navigable,"  merely  because  the  tide  did  not  flow,  and  the  water  was 
fresh  and  well  adapted  to  the  uses  and  necessities  of  man.  We  therefore 
feel  authorized  to  repudiate,  as  unreasonable  and  unjust,  all  injurious  dis 
crimination  predicated  upon  salt  water  and  tidal  arguments,  and  to  insist 
that  if  the  power  of  Congress  to  protect  navigation  has  any  existence  in 
the  Constitution,  it  reaches  every  portion  of  this  Union  where  the  water 
is  in  fact  navigable,  and  only  ceases  where  the  fact  fails  to  exist.  This 
power  has  been  affirmed  in  some  form,  and  exercised  to  a  greater  or  less 
extent,  by  each  successive  Congress  and  every  administration  since  the 


236  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

adoption  of  the  Federal  Constitution.  All  acts  of  Congress  providing  for 
the  erection  of  lighthouses,  the  placing  of  buoys,  the  construction  of  piers, 
the  removal  of  snags,  the  dredging  of  channels,  the  inspection  of  steam 
boat  boilers,  the  carrying  of  life-boats,  —  in  short,  all  enactments  for  the 
security  of  navigation,  and  the  safety  of  life  and  property  within  our  navi 
gable  waters,  assert  the  existence  of  this  power  and  the  propriety  of  its 
exercise  in  some  form. 

The  great  and  growing  interest  of  navigation  is  too  important  to  be 
overlooked  or  disregarded.  Mere  negative  action  will  not  answer.  The 
irregular  and  vacillating  policy  which  has  marked  our  legislation  upon 
this  subject  is  ruinous.  Whenever  appropriations  have  been  proposed 
for  river  and  harbor  improvements,  and  especially  on  the  Northern  lakes 
and  the  Western  rivers,  there  has  usually  been  a  death-struggle  and  a 
doubtful  issue.  We  have  generally  succeeded  with  an  appropriation  once 
in  four  or  five  years;  in  other  words,  we  have,  upon  an  average,  been 
beaten  about  four  times  out  of  five  in  one  house  of  Congress  or  the  other, 
or  both,  or  by  the  Presidential  veto.  When  we  did  succeed,  a  large  portion 
of  the  appropriation  was  expended  in  providing  dredging-machines  and 
snag-boats  and  other  necessary  machinery  and  implements;  and  by  the 
time  the  work  was  fairly  begun,  the  appropriation  was  exhausted,  and 
further  operations  suspended.  Failing  to  procure  an  additional  appro 
priation  at  the  next  session,  and  perhaps  for  two,  three,  or  four  successive 
sessions,  the  administration  has  construed  the  refusal  of  Congress  to  pro 
vide  the  funds  for  the  prosecution  of  the  works  into  an  abandonment  of 
the  system,  and  has  accordingly  deemed  it  a  duty  to  sell  at  public  auction 
the  dredging-machines  and  snag-boats,  implements  and  materials  on 
hand,  for  whatever  they  would  bring.  Soon  the  country  was  again  startled 
by  the  frightful  accounts  of  wrecks  and  explosions,  fires  and  snags  upon 
the  rivers,  the  lakes,  and  the  sea-coast.  The  responsibliity  of  these  appal 
ling  sacrifices  of  life  and  property  were  charged  upon  those  who  defeated 
the  appropriations  for  the  prosecution  of  the  works.  Sympathy  was  ex 
cited,  and  a  concerted  plan  of  agitation  and  organization  formed  by  the 
interested  sections  and  parties  to  bring  their  combined  influence  to  bear 
upon  Congress  in  favor  of  the  reestablishment  of  the  system  on  an  enlarged 
scale,  sufficiently  comprehensive  to  embrace  the  local  interests  and  in 
fluences  in  a  majority  of  the  Congressional  districts  of  the  Union.  A 
legislative  omnibus  was  formed,  in  which  all  sorts  of  works  were  crowded 
together,  good  and  bad,  wise  and  foolish,  national  and  local,  all  crammed 
into  one  bill,  and  forced  through  Congress  by  the  power  of  an  organized 
majority,  after  the  fearful  and  exhausting  struggle  of  a  night  session.  The 
bill  would  receive^the  votes  of  a  majority  in  each  House,  not  because  any 
one  senator  or  representative  approved  all  the  items  contained  in  it,  but 
for  the  reason  that  humanity,  as  well  as  the  stern  demands  of  an  injured 
and  suffering  constituency,  required  that  they  should  make  every  needful 
sacrifice  of  money  to  diminish  the  terrible  loss  of  human  life  by  the  perils 
of  navigation.  The  result  was  a  simple  reenactment  of  the  former  scenes. 
Machinery,  implements,  and  materials  purchased,  the  works  recommenced 


APPENDIX  237 

—  the  money  exhausted  —  subsequent  appropriations  withheld  —  and 
the  operations  suspended,  without  completing  the  improvements,  or  con 
tributing  materially  to  the  safety  of  navigation.  Indeed,  it  may  well  be 
questioned  whether,  as  a  general  rule,  the  money  has  been  wisely  and 
economically  applied,  and  in  many  cases  whether  the  expenditure  has 
been  productive  of  any  useful  results  beyond  the  mere  distribution  of  so 
much  money  among  contractors,  laborers,  and  superintendents  in  the 
favored  localities ;  and  in  others,  whether  it  has  not  been  of  positive  detri 
ment  to  the  navigating  interest. 

I  see  no  hope  for  any  more  favorable  results  from  national  appropria 
tions  than  we  have  heretofore  realized.  If,  then,  we  are  to  judge  the  system 
by  its  results,  taking  the  past  as  a  fair  indication  of  what  might  reasonably 
be  expected  in  the  future,  those  of  us  who  have  struggled  hardest  to  render 
it  efficient  and  useful  are  compelled  to  confess  that  it  has  proven  a  miserable 
failure.  It  is  even  worse  than  a  failure,  because,  while  it  has  failed  to  ac 
complish  the  desired  objects,  it  has  had  the  effect  to  prevent  local  and 
private  enterprise  from  making  the  improvements  under  State  authority, 
by  holding  out  the  expectation  that  the  Federal  Government  was  about 
to  make  them. 

Let  the  history  of  internal  improvements  by  the  Federal  Government  be 
fairly  written,  and  it  will  furnish  conclusive  answers  to  these  interrogato 
ries.  For  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  century  the  energies  of  the  national 
Government,  together  with  all  the  spare  funds  in  the  treasury,  were  directed 
to  the  construction  of  a  macadamized  road  from  Cumberland,  in  the  State 
of  Maryland,  to  Jefferson  City,  in  the  State  of  Missouri,  without  being  able 
to  complete  one-third  of  the  work.  If  the  Government  was  unable  to  make 
three  hundred  miles  of  turnpike  road  in  twenty-five  years,  how  long  would 
it  take  to  construct  a  railroad  to  the  Pacific  Ocean,  and  to  make  all  the 
harbor  and  river  improvements  necessary  to  protect  our  widely-extended 
and  rapidly-increasing  commerce  on  a  sea-coast  so  extensive  that  in  forty 
years  we  have  not  been  able  to  complete  even  the  survey  of  one-half  of  it, 
and  on  a  lake  and  river  navigation  more  than  four  times  as  extensive  as 
that  sea-coast?  These  questions  are  worthy  of  the  serious  consideration 
of  those  who  think  that  improvements  should  be  made  for  the  benefit  of 
the  present  generation  as  well  as  for  our  remote  posterity;  for  I  am  not 
aware  that  the  Federal  Government  ever  completed  any  work  of  internal 
improvement  commenced  under  its  auspices. 

The  operations  of  the  Government  have  not  been  sufficiently  rapid  to 
keep  pace  with  the  spirit  of  the  age.  The  Cumberland  Road,  when  com 
menced,  may  have  been  well  adapted  for  the  purposes  for  which  it  was 
designed;  but  after  the  lapse  of  a  quarter  of  a  century,  and  before  any 
considerable  portion  of  it  could  be  finished,  the  whole  was  superseded 
and  rendered  useless  by  the  introduction  of  the  railroad  system. 

I  repeat  that  the  policy  heretofore  pursued  has  proved  worse  than  a 


238  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 

failure.  If  we  expect  to  provide  facilities  and  securities  for  our  navigating 
interests,  we  must  adopt  a  system  commensurate  with  our  wants  —  one 
which  will  be  just  and  equal  in  its  operations  upon  lake,  river,  and  ocean, 
wherever  the  water  is  navigable,  fresh  or  salt,  tide  or  no  tide  —  a  sys 
tem  which  will  not  depend  for  its  success  upon  the  dubious  and  fluctuating 
issues  of  political  campaigns  and  Congressional  combinations  —  one  which 
will  be  certain,  uniform,  and  unvarying  in  its  results.  I  know  of  no  system 
better  calculated  to  accomplish  these  objects  than  that  which  commanded 
the  approbation  of  the  founders  of  the  republic,  was  successively  adopted 
on  various  occasions  since  that  period,  and  directly  referred  to  in  the 
message  of  the  President.  It  is  evidently  the  system  contemplated  by 
the  framers  of  the  Constitution  when  they  incorporated  into  that  in 
strument  the  clause  in  relation  to  tonnage  duties  by  the  States  with  the 
assent  of  Congress.  The  debates  show  that  this  provision  was  inserted  for 
the  express  purpose  of  enabling  the  States  to  levy  duties  of  tonnage  to 
make  harbor  and  other  improvements  for  the  benefit  of  navigation.  It 
was  objected  that  the  power  to  regulate  commerce  having  already  been 
vested  exclusively  in  Congress,  the  jurisdiction  of  the  States  over  harbor 
and  river  improvements,  without  the  consent  or  supervision  of  the  Federal 
Government,  might  be  so  exercised  as  to  conflict  with  the  Congressional 
regulations  in  respect  to  commerce.  In  order  to  avoid  this  objection,  and 
at  the  same  time  reserve  to  the  States  the  power  of  making  the  necessary 
improvements,  consistent  with  such  rules  as  should  be  prescribed  by  Con 
gress  for  the  regulation  of  commerce,  the  provision  was  modified  and 
adopted  in  the  form  in  which  we  now  find  it  in  the  Constitution,  to  wit: 
"no  State  shall  lay  duties  of  tonnage  except  by  the  consent  of  Congress."  It 
is  evident  from  the  debates  that  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  looked  to 
tonnage  duties  as  the  source  from  which  funds  were  to  be  derived  for  im 
provements  in  navigation.  The  only  diversity  of  opinion  among  them 
arose  upon  the  point  whether  those  duties  shoud  be  levied  and  the  works 
constructed  by  the  Federal  Government  or  under  State  authority.  These 
doubts  were  solved  by  the  clause  quoted,  providing,  in  effect,  that  while 
the  power  was  reserved  to  the  States,  it  should  not  be  exercised  except  by 
the  consent  of  Congress,  in  order  that  the  local  legislation  for  the  improve 
ment  of  navigation  might  not  conflict  with  the  general  enactments  for  the 
regulation  of  commerce.  Yet  the  first  Congress  which  assembled  under 
the  Constitution  commenced  that  series  of  contradictory  and  partial  enact 
ments  which  has  continued  to  the  present  time,  and  proven  the  fruitful 
source  of  conflict  and  dissension. 

The  first  of  these  acts  provided  that  all  expenses  for  the  support  of  light 
houses,  beacons,  buoys,  and  public  piers  should  be  paid  out  of  the  national 
treasury,  on  the  condition  that  the  States  in  which  the  same  should  be 
situated  respectively  should  cede  to  the  United  States  the  said  works, 
"together  with  the  lands  and  tenements  thereunto  belonging,  and  together 
with  the  jurisdiction  of  the  same."  A  few  months  afterward  the  same 
Congress  passed  an  act  consenting  that  the  States  of  Rhode  Island,  Mary 
land,  and  Georgia  might  levy  tonnage  duties  for  the  purpose  of  improving 


APPENDIX  239 

certain  harbors  and  rivers  within  their  respective  limits.  This  contra 
dictory  legislation  upon  a  subject  of  great  national  importance,  although 
commenced  by  the  first  Congress,  and  frequently  suspended  and  renewed 
at  uncertain  and  irregular  periods,  seems  never  to  have  been  entirely 
abandoned.  While  appropriations  from  the  national  treasury  have  been 
partial  and  irregular  —  sometimes  granted  and  at  others  withheld  —  stimu 
lating  hopes  only  to  be  succeeded  by  disappointments,  tonnage  duties 
have  also  been  collected  by  the  consent  of  Congress,  at  various  times  and 
for  limited  periods,  in  Pennsylvania,  Maryland,  Virginia,  North  Carolina, 
South  Carolina,  Georgia,  Alabama,  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  and  per 
haps  other  States.  Indeed,  there  has  never  been  a  time,  since  the  Declara 
tion  of  Independence,  when  tonnage  duties  have  not  been  collected  under 
State  authority  for  the  improvement  of  rivers  or  harbors,  or  both.  The 
last  act  giving  the  consent  of  Congress  to  the  collection  of  these  duties  was 
passed  for  the  benefit  of  the  port  of  Baltimore  in  1850,  and  will  not  expire 
until  1861. 

Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  the  proposition  to  pass  a  general  law  giving  the 
consent  of  Congress  to  the  imposition  of  tonnage  duties  according  to  a  uni 
form  rule,  and  upon  equal  terms  in  all  the  States  and  Territories  of  the 
Union,  does  not  contemplate  the  introduction  of  a  new  principle  into  our 
legislation  upon  this  subject.  It  only  proposes  to  convert  a  partial  and 
fluctuating  policy  into  a  permanent  and  efficient  system. 

If  this  proposition  should  receive  the  sanction  of  Congress,  and  be  car 
ried  into  successful  operation  by  the  States,  it  would  withdraw  river  and 
harbor  improvements  from  the  perils  of  the  political  arena,  and  commit 
them  to  the  fostering  care  of  the  local  authorities,  with  a  steady  and  un 
ceasing  source  of  revenue  for  their  prosecution.  The  system  would  be  plain, 
direct,  and  simple  in  respect  to  harbor  improvements.  Each  town  and 
city  would  have  charge  of  the  improvement  of  its  own  harbor,  and  would 
be  authorized  to  tax  its  own  commerce  to  the  extent  necessary  for  its  con 
struction.  The  money  could  be  applied  to  no  other  object  than  the  im 
provement  of  the  harbor,  and  no  higher  duties  could  be  levied  than  were 
necessary  for  that  purpose.  There  would  seem  to  be  no  danger  of  the  power 
being  abused;  for,  in  addition  to  the  restrictions,  limitations,  and  condi 
tions  which  should  be  embraced  in  the  laws  conferring  the  consent  of  Con 
gress,  self-interest  will  furnish  adequate  and  ample  assurances  and  motives 
for  the  faithful  execution  of  the  trusts.  If  any  town  whose  harbor  needs  im 
provement  should  fail  to  impose  the  duties  and  make  the  necessary  works, 
such  neglect  would  inevitably  tend  to  drive  the  commerce  to  some  rival 
port,  which  would  use  all  the  means  in  its  power  to  render  its  harbor  safe 
and  commodious,  and  afford  all  necessary  protection  and  facilities  to 
navigation  and  trade.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  any  place  should  attempt 
to  impose  higher  duties  than  will  be  absolutely  necessary  for  the  construc 
tion  of  the  requisite  improvements,  this  line  of  policy,  to  the  extent  of  the 
excess,  would  have  the  same  deleterious  effects  upon  its  prosperity.  The 
same  injurious  influences  would  result  from  errors  and  blunders  in  the  plan 
of  the  work,  or  from  extravagance  and  corruption  in  the  expenditure  of 


240  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

the  money.  Hence  each  locality,  and  every  citizen  and  person  interested 
therein,  would  have  a  direct  and  personal  interest  in  the  adoption  of  a  wise 
plan,  and  in  securing  strict  economy  and  entire  fidelity  in  the  expenditure 
of  the  money.  While  upon  the  rivers  the  plan  of  operations  would  not  be 
so  direct  and  simple  as  in  the  improvement  of  harbors,  yet  even  there  it 
is  not  perceived  that  any  serious  inconvenience  or  obstacle  would  arise  to 
the  success  of  the  system.  It  would  be  necessary  that  the  law,  which  shall 
grant  the  consent  of  Congress  to  the  imposition  of  the  duties,  shall  also 
give  a  like  consent  in  conformity  with  the  same  provision  of  the  Constitu 
tion,  that  where  the  river  to  be  improved  shall  form  the  boundary  of,  or 
be  situated  in  two  or  more  States,  such  States  may  enter  into  compacts 
with  each  other,  by  which  they  may,  under  their  joint  authority,  levy  the 
duties  and  improve  the  navigation. 

In  this  manner  Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  and  New  Jersey  could  enter 
into  a  compact  for  the  improvement  of  the  Delaware  River,  by  which  each 
would  appoint  one  commissioner,  and  the  three  commissioners  constitute 
a  board,  which  would  levy  the  duties,  prescribe  the  mode  of  their  collec 
tion,  devise  the  plan  of  the  improvement,  and  superintend  the  expenditure 
of  the  money.  The  six  States  bordering  on  the  Ohio  River,  in  like  manner, 
could  each  appoint  a  commissioner,  and  the  six  constitute  a  board  for  the 
improvement  of  the  navigation  of  that  river  from  Pittsburg  to  the  Miss 
issippi.  The  same  plan  could  be  applied  to  the  Mississippi,  by  which  the 
nine  States  bordering  upon  that  stream  could  each  appoint  one  commis 
sioner,  and  the  nine  form  a  board  for  the  removal  of  snags  and  other  ob 
structions  in  the  channel  from  the  Falls  of  St.  Anthony  to  the  Gulf  of 
Mexico.  There  seems  to  be  no  difficulty,  therefore,  in  the  execution  of 
the  plan  where  the  wrater-course  lies  in  two  or  more  States,  or  forms  the 
boundary  thereof  in  whole  or  in  part;  and  where  the  river  is  entirely 
within  the  limits  of  any  one  State,  like  the  Illinois  or  Alabama,  it  may  be 
improved  in  such  manner  as  the  Legislature  may  prescribe,  subject  only 
to  such  conditions  and  limitations  as  may  be  contained  in  the  act  of  Con 
gress  giving  its  consent.  All  the  necessities  and  difficulties  upon  this 
subject  seem  to  have  been  foreseen  and  provided  for  in  the  same  clause 
of  the  Constitution,  wherein  it  is  declared,  in  effect,  that,  with  the  con 
sent  of  Congress,  tonnage  duties  may  be  levied  for  the  improvement  of 
rivers  and  harbors,  and  that  the  several  States  may  enter  into  compacts 
with  each  other  for  that  purpose  whenever  it  shall  become  necessary, 
subject  only  to  such  rules  as  Congress  shall  prescribe  for  the  regulation  of 
commerce. 

It  only  remains  for  me  to  notice  some  of  the  objections  which  have  been 
urged  to  this  system.  It  has  been  said  that  tonnage  duties  are  taxes  upon 
the  commerce  of  the  country,  which  must  be  paid  in  the  end  by  the  con 
sumers  of  the  articles  bearing  the  burden.  I  do  not  feel  disposed  to  ques 
tion  the  soundness  of  this  proposition.  I  presume  the  same  is  true  of  all 
the  duties,  tolls,  and  charges  upon  all  public  works,  whether  constructed 
by  Government  or  individuals.  The  State  of  New  York  derives  a  revenue 
of  more  than  two  millions  of  dollars  a  year  from  her  canals.  Of  course  this 


APPENDIX  241 

is  a  tax  upon  the  commerce  of  the  country,  and  is  borne  by  those  who  are 
interested  in  and  benefited  by  it.  This  tax  is  a  blessing  or  a  burden,  de 
pendent  upon  the  fact  whether  it  has  the  effect  to  diminish  or  increase 
the  cost  of  transportation.  If  we  could  not  have  enjoyed  the  benefit  of  the 
canal  without  the  payment  of  the  tolls,  and  if,  by  its  construction  and 
the  payment,  the  cost  of  transportation  has  been  reduced  to  one-tenth  the 
sum  which  we  would  have  been  compelled  to  have  paid  without  it,  who 
would  not  be  willing  to  make  a  still  further  contribution  to  the  security 
and  facilities  of  navigation,  if  thereby  the  price  of  freights  is  to  be  reduced 
in  a  still  greater  ratio  ?  The  tolls  upon  our  own  canal  are  a  tax  upon  com 
merce,  yet  we  cheerfully  submit  to  the  payment  for  the  reason  that  they 
were  indispensable  to  the  construction  of  a  great  work,  which  has  had  the 
effect  to  reduce  the  cost  of  transportation  between  the  Lakes  and  the  Miss 
issippi  far  below  what  it  would  have  been  if  the  canal  had  not  been  made. 
All  the  charges  on  the  fourteen  thousand  miles  of  railroad  now  in  opera 
tion  in  the  different  States  of  this  Union  are  just  so  many  taxes  upon  com 
merce  and  travel,  yet  we  do  not  repudiate  the  whole  railroad  system  on 
that  account,  nor  object  to  the  payment  of  such  reasonable  charges  as  are 
necessary  to  defray  the  expenses  of  constructing  and  operating  them. 
But  it  may  be  said  that  if  all  the  railroads  and  canals  were  built  with  funds 
from  the  national  treasury,  and  were  then  thrown  open  to  the  uses  of  com 
merce  and  travel  free  of  charge,  the  rates  of  transportation  would  be  less 
than  they  now  are.  It  may  be  that  the  rates  of  transportation  would  be 
less,  but  would  our  taxes  be  reduced  thereby?  No  matter  who  is  intrusted 
with  the  construction  of  the  works,  somebody  must  foot  the  bill.  If  the 
Federal  Government  undertake  to  make  railroads  and  canals,  and  river 
and  harbor  improvements,  somebody  must  pay  the  expenses.  In  order 
to  meet  this  enlarged  expenditure,  it  would  be  necessary  to  augment  the 
revenue  by  increased  taxes  upon  the  commerce  of  the  country.  The  whole 
volume  of  revenue  which  now  fills  and  overflows  the  national  treasury, 
with  the  exception  of  the  small  item  resulting  from  the  sales  of  public 
lands,  is  derived  from  a  system  of  taxes  imposed  upon  commerce  and  col 
lected  through  the  machinery  of  the  custom-houses.  No  matter,  therefore, 
whether  these  works  are  made  by  the  Federal  Government,  or  by  stimu 
lating  and  combining  local  and  individual  enterprise  under  State  authority; 
in  any  event,  they  remain  a  tax  upon  commerce  to  the  extent  of  the  ex 
penditure. 

That  system  which  will  insure  the  construction  of  the  improvements 
upon  the  best  plan  and  at  the  smallest  cost  will  prove  the  least  oppres 
sive  to  the  tax-payer  and  the  most  useful  to  commerce.  It  requires  no 
argument  to  prove  —  for  every  day's  experience  teaches  us  —  that  public 
works  of  every  description  can  be  made  at  a  much  smaller  cost  by  private 
enterprise,  or  by  the  local  authorities  directly  interested  in  the  improve 
ment,  than  when  constructed  by  the  Federal  Government.  Hence,  inas 
much  as  the  expenses  of  constructing  river  and  harbor  improvements 
must,  under  either  plan,  be  defrayed  by  a  tax  upon  commerce  in  the  first 
instance,  and  finally  upon  the  whole  people  interested  in  that  commerce, 

16 


242  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

I  am  of  the  opinion  that  the  burdens  would  be  less  under  this  system  re 
ferred  to  in  the  message  than  by  appropriations  from  the  federal  treasury. 

In  conclusion,  I  will  state  that  my  object  in  addressing  you  this  communi 
cation  is  to  invite  your  special  attention  to  so  much  of  the  President's  Mes 
sage  as  relates  to  river  and  harbor  improvements,  with  the  view  that  when 
the  Legislature  shall  assemble,  either  in  special  or  general  session,  the  sub 
ject  may  be  distinctly  submitted  to  their  consideration  for  such  action  as 
the  great  interests  of  commerce  may  demand. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  very  respectfully,  your  friend  and  fellow-citizen, 

S.  A.  DOUGLAS. 
JOEL  A.  MATTESON,  Governor  of  the  State  of  Illinois. 


SPEECH   IN  THE   SENATE  ON  THE   PACIFIC  RAILWAY 
(Delivered  April  17,  1858) 

VARIOUS  objections  have  been  raised  to  this  bill,  some  referring  to  the  route, 
involving  sectional  consideration;  others  to  the  form  of  the  bill;  others  to 
the  present  time  as  inauspicious  for  the  construction  of  such  a  railroad 
under  any  circumstances.  Sir,  I  have  examined  this  bill  very  carefully.  I 
was  a  member  of  the  committee  that  framed  it,  and  I  gave  my  cordial 
assent  to  the  report.  I  am  free  to  say  that  I  think  it  is  the  best  bill  that 
has  ever  been  reported  to  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  for  the  construc 
tion  of  a  Pacific  railroad.  I  say  this  with  entire  disinterestedness,  for  I 
have  heretofore  reported  several  myself,  and  I  believe  I  have  invariably 
been  a  member  of  the  committees  that  have  reported  such  bills.  I  am 
glad  to  find  that  we  have  progressed  to  such  an  extent  as  to  be  able  to  im 
prove  on  the  former  bills  that  have,  from  time  to  time,  been  brought  before 
the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  This  may  not  be  perfect.  It  is  difficult 
to  make  human  legislation  entirely  perfect ;  at  any  rate,  to  so  construct  it 
as  to  bring  about  an  entire  unanimity  of  opinion  upon  a  question  that  in 
volves,  to  some  extent,  selfish,  sectional,  and  partisan  considerations.  But, 
sir,  I  think  this  bill  is  fair.  First,  it  is  fair  in  the  location  of  the  route,  as 
between  the  different  sections.  The  termini  are  fixed.  Then  the  route 
between  the  termini  is  to  be  left  to  the  contractors  and  owners  of  the 
road,  who  are  to  put  their  capital  into  it,  and,  for  weal  or  for  woe,  are  to 
be  responsible  for  its  management. 

What  is  the  objection  to  these  termini  ?  San  Francisco,  upon  the  Pacific, 
is  not  only  central,  but  it  is  the  great  commercial  mart,  the  great  concen 
trating  point,  the  great  entrepot  for  the  commerce  of  the  Pacific,  not  only 
in  the  present,  but  in  the  future.  That  point  was  selected  as  the  western 
terminus  for  the  reason  that  there  seemed  to  be  a  unanimous  sentiment 
that  whatever  might  be  the  starting-point  on  the  east,  the  system  would 
not  be  complete  until  it  should  reach  the  city  of  San  Francisco  on  the 
west.  I  suggested,  myself,  in  the  committee,  the  selection  of  that  very 
point;  not  that  I  had  any  objection  to  other  points;  not  that  I  was  any 
more  friendly  to  San  Francisco  and  her  inhabitants  than  to  any  other  port 
on  the  Pacific;  but  because  I  believe  that  to  be  the  commanding  port, 
the  large  city  where  trade  concentrates,  and  its  position  indicated  it  as 
the  proper  terminus  on  the  Pacific  Ocean. 

Then,  in  regard  to  the  eastern  terminus,  a  point  on  the  Missouri  River  is 
selected  for  various  reasons.  One  is,  that  it  is  central  as  between  the  North 
and  South  —  as  nearly  central  as  could  be  selected.  It  was  necessary  to 


244  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS 

commence  on  the  Missouri  River,  if  you  were  going  to  take  a  central  route, 
in  order  that  the  starting-point  might  connect  with  navigation,  so  that 
you  might  reach  it  by  boats  in  carrying  your  iron,  your  supplies,  and  your 
materials  for  the  commencement  and  the  construction  of  the  road.  It  was 
essential  that  you  should  commence  at  a  point  of  navigation  so  that  you 
could  connect  with  the  sea-board.  If  you  start  it  at  a  point  back  in  the 
interior  five  hundred  or  a  thousand  miles  —  as  it  is  proposed,  at  El  Paso 
—  from  the  navigable  waters  of  the  Mississippi,  it  would  cost  you  more 
money  to  carry  the  iron,  provisions,  supplies,  and  men  to  that  starting- 
point,  than  it  would  to  make  a  road  from  the  Mississippi  to  the  starting- 
point,  in  order  to  begin  the  work.  In  that  case  it  would  be  a  matter  of 
economy  to  make  a  road  to  your  starting-point  in  order  to  begin.  Hence, 
in  my  opinion,  it  would  be  an  act  of  folly  to  think  of  starting  a  railroad 
to  the  Pacific  at  a  point  eight  hundred  or  a  thousand  miles  in  the  interior, 
away  from  any  connection  with  navigable  water,  or  with  other  railroads 
already  in  existence. 

For  these  reasons,  we  agreed  in  the  bill  to  commence  on  the  Missouri 
River.  When  you  indicate  that  river,  a  little  diversity  of  opinion  arises  as 
to  what  point  on  the  river  shall  be  selected.  There  are  various  respectable, 
thriving  towns  on  either  bank  of  the  river,  each  of  which  thinks  it  is  the 
exact  position  where  the  road  ought  to  commence.  I  suppose  that  Kansas 
City,  Wyandotte,  Weston,  Leavenworth,  Atchison,  Plattsmouth  city, 
Omaha,  De  Soto,  Sioux  City,  and  various  other  towns  whose  names  ha\«e 
not  become  familiar  to  us,  and  have  found  no  resting-place  on  the  map, 
each  thinks  that  it  has  the  exact  place  where  the  road  should  begin.  Well, 
sir,  I  do  not  desire  to  show  any  preference  between  these  towns ;  either  of 
them  would  suit  me  very  well;  and  we  leave  it  to  the  contractors  to  say 
which  shall  be  the  one.  We  leave  the  exact  eastern  terminus  open  for  the 
reason  that  the  public  interests  will  be  substantially  as  well  served  by  the 
selection  of  one  as  another.  It  is  not  so  at  the  western  terminus.  San 
Francisco  does  not  occupy  that  relation  to  the  towns  on  the  Pacific  coast 
that  these  little  towns  on  the  Missouri  River  do  to  the  country  east  of 
the  Missouri.  The  public  have  no  material  interest  in  the  question  whether 
it  shall  start  at  the  mouth  of  the  Kansas,  at  Weston,  at  Leavenworth,  at 
St.  Joseph,  at  Plattsmouth,  or  at  Sioux  City.  Either  connects  with  the 
great  lines;  either  would  be  substantially  central  as  between  North  and 
South.  So  far  as  I  am  concerned,  I  should  not  care  a  sixpence  which  of 
those  towns  was  selected  as  the  starting-point,  because  they  start  there 
upon  a  plain  that  stretches  for  eight  hundred  miles,  and  can  connect  with 
the  whole  railroad  system  of  the  country.  You  can  go  directly  west.  You 
can  bend  to  the  north  and  connect  with  the  northern  roads,  or  bend  to 
the  south  and  connect  with  the  southern  roads. 

The  senator  from  Georgia  [Mr.  Iverson]  would  be  satisfied,  as  I  under 
stand,  with  the  termini,  if  we  had  selected  one  intermediate  point,  so  as  to 
indicate  the  route  that  should  be  taken  between  the  termini.  I  understand 
that  he  would  be  satisfied  if  we  should  indicate  that  it  should  go  south  of 
Santa  Fe,  so  as  to  include  as  the  probable  line  the  Albuquerque  route,  or 


APPENDIX  245 

the  one  on  the  thirty-fifth  parallel,  or  the  one  south  of  it.  Sir,  I  am  free  to 
say  that,  individually,  I  should  have  no  objection  to  the  route  indicated 
by  the  senator  from  Georgia.  I  have  great  faith  that  the  Albuquerque 
route  is  an  exceedingly  favorable  one ;  favorable  in  its  grades,  in  the  short 
ness  of  its  distances,  in  its  climate,  the  absence  of  deep  snow,  and  in  the 
topography  of  the  country.  While  it  avoids  very  steep  grades,  it  fur 
nishes,  perhaps,  as  much  of  grass,  of  timber,  of  water,  of  materials  neces 
sary  for  the  construction  and  repair  of  the  road,  if  not  more,  than  any  other 
route.  As  a  Northern  man,  living  upon  the  great  line  of  the  lakes,  you  can 
not  indicate  a  route  that  I  think  would  subserve  our  interests,  and 
the  great  interests  of  this  country,  better  than  that;  yet,  if  I  expressed  the 
opinion  that  the  line  ought  to  go  on  that  route  between  the  termini,  some 
other  man  would  say  it  ought  to  go  on  Governor  Stevens's  extreme  north 
ern  route;  some  one  else  would  say  it  ought  to  go  on  the  South  Pass 
route ;  and  we  should  divide  the  friends  of  the  measure  as  to  the  point  at 
which  the  road  should  pass  the  mountains  —  whether  at  the  extreme 
north,  at  the  centre,  the  Albuquerque  route,  or  the  further  southern  one 
down  in  Arizona  —  and  we  should  be  unable  to  decide  between  ourselves 
which  was  best. 

I  have  sometimes  thought  that  the  extreme  northern  route,  known  as 
the  Stevens  route,  was  the  best,  as  furnishing  better  grass,  more  timber, 
more  water,  more  of  those  elements  necessary  in  constructing,  repairing, 
operating,  and  maintaining  a  road,  than  any  other.  I  think  now  that  the 
preference,  merely  upon  routes,  is  between  the  northern  or  Stevens  route 
on  the  one  side,  and  the  Albuquerque  route  on  the  other.  Still,  as  I  never 
expect  to  put  a  dollar  of  money  into  the  road,  as  I  never  expect  to  have 
any  agency  or  connection  with  or  interest  in  it,  I  am  willing  to  leave  the 
selection  of  the  route  between  the  termini  to  those  who  are  to  put  their 
fortunes  and  connect  their  character  with  the  road,  and  to  be  responsible 
in  the  most  tender  of  all  points,  if  they  make  a  mistake  in  the  selection. 
But  for  these  considerations,  I  should  have  cheerfully  yielded  to  the  sug 
gestion  of  the  senator  from  Georgia  to  fix  the  crossing-point  on  the  Rio 
Grande  River. 

But,  sir,  I  am  unwilling  to  lose  this  great  measure  merely  because  of  a 
difference  of  opinion  as  to  what  shall  be  the  pass  selected  in  the  Rocky 
Mountains  through  which  the  road  shall  run.  I  believe  it  is  a  great  national 
measure.  I  believe  it  is  the  greatest  practical  measure  now  pending  before 
the  country.  I  believe  that  we  have  arrived  at  that  period  in  our  history 
when  our  great  substantial  interests  require  it.  The  interests  of  commerce, 
the  great  interests  of  travel  and  communication  —  those  still  greater  in 
terests  that  bind  the  Union  together,  and  are  to  make  and  preserve  the 
continent  as  one  and  indivisible  —  all  demand  that  this  road  shall  be  com 
menced,  prosecuted,  and  completed  at  the  earliest  practicable  moment. 

I  am  unwilling  to  postpone  the  bill  until  next  December.  I  have  seen 
these  postponements  from  session  to  session  for  the  last  eight  or  ten  years, 
with  the  confident  assurance  every  year  that  at  the  next  session  we  should 
have  abundance  of  time  to  take  up  the  bill  and  act  upon  it.  Sir,  will  you 


246  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

be  better  prepared  at  the  next  session  than  now?  We  have  now  the  whole 
summer  before  us,  drawing  our  pay,  and  proposing  to  perform  no  service. 
Next  December  you  will  have  but  ninety  days,  with  all  the  unfinished  busi 
ness  left  over,  your  appropriation  bills  on  hand,  and  not  only  the  regular 
bills,  but  the  new  deficiency  bill ;  and  you  will  postpone  this  measure  again 
for  the  want  of  time  to  consider  it  then.  I  think,  sir,  we  had  better  grapple 
with  the  difficulties  that  surround  this  question  now,  when  it  is  fairly  before 
us,  when  we  have  time  to  consider  it,  and  when  I  think  we  can  act  upon  it 
as  dispassionately,  as  calmly,  as  wisely,  as  we  shall  ever  be  able  to  do. 

I  have  regretted  to  see  the  question  of  sectional  advantages  brought  into 
this  discussion.  If  you  are  to  have  but  one  road,  fairness  and  justice  would 
plainly  indicate  that  that  one  should  be  located  as  near  the  centre  as  prac 
ticable.  The  Missouri  River  is  as  near  the  centre  and  the  line  of  this  road 
is  as  near  as  it  can  be  made ;  and  if  there  is  but  one  to  be  made,  the  route 
now  indicated,  in  my  opinion,  is  fair,  is  just,  and  ought  to  be  taken.  I  have 
heretofore  been  of  the  opinion  that  we  ought  to  have  three  roads:  one  in 
the  centre,  one  in  the  extreme  south,  and  one  in  the  extreme  north.  If  I 
thought  we  could  carry  the  three,  and  could  execute  them  in  any  reason 
able  time,  I  would  now  adhere  to  that  policy  and  prefer  it ;  but  I  have  seen 
enough  here  during  this  session  of  Congress  to  satisfy  me  that  but  one  can 
pass,  and  to  ask  for  three  at  this  time  is  to  lose  the  whole.  Believing  that 
that  is  the  temper,  that  that  is  the  feeling,  and,  I  will  say,  the  judgment 
of  the  members  of  both  houses  of  Congress,  I  prefer  to  take  one  road  rather 
than  to  lose  all  in  the  vain  attempt  to  get  three.  If  there  were  to  be  three, 
of  course  the  one  indicated  in  this  bill  would  be  the  central ;  one  would  be 
north  of  it,  and  another  south  of  it.  But  if  there  is  to  be  but  one,  the  cen 
tral  one  should  be  taken;  for  the  north,  by  bending  a  little  down  south, 
can  join  it;  and  the  south,  by  leaning  a  little  to  the  north,  can  unite  with 
it  too ;  and  our  Southern  friends  ought  to  be  able  to  bend  and  lean  a  little 
as  well  as  to  require  us  to  bend  and  lean  all  the  time,  in  order  to  join  them. 
The  central  position  is  the  just  one,  if  there  is  to  be  but  one  road.  The 
concession  should  be  as  much  on  the  one  side  as  on  the  other.  I  am  ready 
to  meet  gentlemen  half  way  on  every  question  that  does  not  violate  prin 
ciple,  and  they  ought  not  to  ask  us  to  meet  them  more  than  half  way 
where  there  is  no  principle  involved,  and  nothing  but  expediency. 

Then,  sir,  why  not  unite  upon  this  bill?  We  are  told  it  is  going  to  in 
volve  the  Government  of  the  United  States  in  countless  millions  of  expen 
diture.  How  is  that?  Certainly  not  under  this  bill,  not  by  authority  of 
this  bill,  not  without  violating  this  bill.  The  bill  under  consideration 
provides  that  when  a  section  of  the  road  shall  be  made,  the  Government 
may  advance  a  portion  of  the  lands,  and  $12,500  per  mile  in  bonds  on  the 
section  thus  made,  in  order  to  aid  in  the  construction  of  the  next,  holding 
a  lien  upon  the  road  for  the  refunding  of  the  money  thus  advanced.  Under 
this  bill  it  is  not  possible  that  the  contractors  can  ever  obtain  more  than 
$12,500  per  mile  on  each  mile  of  the  road  that  is  completed.  It  is,  there 
fore,  very  easy  to  compute  the  cost  to  the  Government.  Take  the  length 
of  the  road  in  miles,  and  multiply  it  by  $12,500,  and  you  have  the  cost, 


APPENDIX  247 

If  you  make  the  computation,  you  will  find  it  will  come  to  a  fraction  over 
$20,000,000.  The  limitation  in  the  bill  is,  that  in  no  event  shall  it  exceed 
$25,000,000.  Therefore,  by  the  terms  of  the  bill,  the  undertaking  of  the 
Government  is  confined  to  $25,000,000 ;  and,  by  the  calculation,  it  will  be 
less  than  that  sum.  Is  that  a  sum  that  would  bankrupt  the  treasury  of 
the  United  States? 

I  predict  to  you  now,  sir,  that  the  Mormon  campaign  has  cost,  and  has 
led  to  engagements  and  undertakings  that,  when  redeemed,  will  cost  more 
than  $25,000,000,  if  not  double  that  sum.  During  the  last  six  months,  on 
account  of  the  Mormon  rebellion,  expenses  have  been  paid  and  undertak 
ings  have  been  assumed  which  will  cost  this  Government  more  than  the 
total  expenditure  which  can  possibly  be  made  in  conformity  with  the  pro 
visions  of  this  bill.  If  you  had  had  this  railroad  made  you  would  have 
saved  the  whole  cost  which  the  Government  is  to  advance  in  this  little 
Mormon  war  alone.  If  you  have  a  general  Indian  war  in  the  mountains,  it 
will  cost  you  twice  the  amount  called  for  by  this  bill.  If  you  should  have 
a  war  with  a  European  power,  the  construction  of  this  road  would  save 
many  fold  its  cost  in  the  transportation  of  troops  and  munitions  of  war 
to  the  Pacific  Ocean,  in  carrying  on  your  operations. 

In  an  economical  point  of  view  I  look  upon  it  as  a  wise  measure.  It  is 
one  of  economy  as  a  war  measure  alone,  or  as  a  peace  measure  for  the  pur 
pose  of  preventing  a  war.  Whether  viewed  as  a  war  measure,  to  enable 
you  to  check  rebellion  in  a  Territory,  or  hostilities  with  the  Indians,  or  to 
carry  on  vigorously  a  war  with  a  European  power,  or  viewed  as  a  peace 
measure,  it  is  a  wise  policy,  dictated  by  every  consideration  of  convenience 
and  public  good. 

Again,  sir,  in  carrying  the  mails,  it  is  an  economical  measure.  As  the 
senator  from  Georgia  has  demonstrated,  the  cost  of  carrying  the  mails  alone 
to  the  Pacific  Ocean  for  thirty  years,  under  the  present  contracts,  is  double 
the  amount  of  the  whole  expenditure  under  this  bill  for  the  same  time  in 
the  construction  and  working  of  the  road.  In  the  transportation  of  mails, 
then,  it  would  save  twice  its  cost.  The  transportation  of  army  and  navy 
supplies  would  swell  the  amount  to  three  or  four  fold.  How  many  years 
will  it  be  before  the  Government  will  receive  back,  in  transportation,  the 
whole  cost  of  this  advance  of  aid  in  the  construction  of  the  road? 

But,  sir,  some  gentlemen  think  it  is  an  unsound  policy,  leading  to  the 
doctrine  of  internal  improvements  by  the  Federal  Government  within  the 
different  States  of  the  Union.  We  are  told  we  must  continue  the  road  to 
the  limits  of  the  Territories,  and  not  extend  it  into  the  States,  because  it  is 
supposed  that  entering  a  State  with  this  contract  violates  some  great  prin 
ciple  of  State-rights.  Mr.  President,  the  committee  considered  that  propo 
sition,  and  they  avoided  that  objection  in  the  estimation  of  the  most  strict, 
rigid,  tight-laced  State-rights  men  that  we  have  in  the  body.  We  struck 
out  the  provision  in  the  bill  first  drawn,  that  the  President  should  contract 
for  the  construction  of  a  railroad  from  the  Missouri  River  to  the  Pacific 
Ocean,  and  followed  an  example  that  we  found  on  the  statute-book  for 
carrying  the  mails  from  Alexandria  to  Richmond,  Virginia  —  an  act  passed 


248  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 

about  the  time  when  the  resolutions  of  1798  were  adopted,  and  the  report 
of  1799  was  made  —  an  act  that  we  thought  came  exactly  within  the 
spirit  of  those  resolutions.  That  act,  according  to  my  recollection,  was, 
that  the  Department  be  authorized  to  contract  for  the  transportation  of 
the  United  States  mail  by  four-horse  post-coaches,  with  closed  backs,  so 
as  to  protect  it  from  the  weather  and  rain,  from  Alexandria  to  Richmond, 
in  the  State  of  Virginia.  It  occurred  to  this  committee  that  if  it  had  been 
the  custom,  from  the  beginning  of  this  Government  to  this  day,  to  make 
contracts  for  the  transportation  of  the  mails  in  four-horse  post-coaches, 
built  in  a  particular  manner,  and  the  contractor  left  to  furnish  his  own 
coaches  and  his  own  horses,  and  his  own  means  of  transportation,  we 
might  make  a  similar  contract  for  the  transportation  of  the  mails  by  rail 
road  from  one  point  to  another,  leaving  the  contractor  to  make  his  own 
railroad,  and  furnish  his  own  cars,  and  comply  with  the  terms  of  the 
contract. 

There  is  nothing  in  this  bill  that  violates  any  one  principle  which  has 
prevailed  in  every  mail  contract  that  has  been  made,  from  the  days  of 
Dr.  Franklin  down  to  the  elevation  of  James  Buchanan  to  the  Presidency. 
Every  contract  for  carrying  the  mail  by  horse,  from  such  a  point  to 
such  a  point,  in  saddle-bags,  involves  the  same  principle.  Every  contract 
for  carrying  it  from  such  a  point  to  such  a  point  in  two-horse  hacks,  with  a 
covering  to  protect  it  from  the  storm,  involves  the  same  principle.  Every 
contract  to  carry  it  from  such  a  point  to  such  a  point  in  four-horse  coaches 
of  a  particular  description,  involves  the  same  principle.  You  contracted  to 
carry  the  mails  from  New  York  to  Liverpool  in  ships  of  two  thousand  tons 
each,  to  be  constructed  according  to  a  model  prescribed  by  the  Navy  De 
partment,  leaving  the  contractor  to  furnish  his  own  ships,  and  receive  so 
much  pay.  That  involves  the  same  principle. 

You  have,  therefore,  carried  out  the  principle  of  this  bill  in  every  con 
tract  you  have  ever  had  for  mails,  whether  it  be  upon  the  land  or  upon  the 
water.  In  every  mail  contract  you  have  had,  you  have  carried  out  the 
identical  principle  involved  in  this  bill  —  simply  the  right  to  contract  for 
the  transportation  of  the  United  States  mails,  troops,  munitions  of  war, 
army  and  navy  supplies,  at  fair  prices,  in  the  manner  you  prescribed,  leav 
ing  the  contracting  party  to  furnish  the  mode  and  means  of  transportation. 
That  is  all  there  is  in  it.  I  do  not  see  how  it  can  violate  any  party  creed ; 
how  it  can  violate  any  principle  of  State-rights ;  how  it  can  interfere  with 
any  man's  conscientious  scruples.  Then,  sir,  where  is  the  objection? 

If  you  look  on  this  as  a  measure  of  economy  and  a  commercial  measure, 
the  argument  is  all  in  favor  of  the  bill.  It  is  true,  the  senator  from  Massa 
chusetts  has  suggested  that  it  is  idle  to  suppose  that  the  trade  of  China 
is  to  centre  in  San  Francisco,  and  then  pay  sixty  dollars  a  ton  for  transpor 
tation  across  the  continent  by  a  railroad  to  Boston.  It  was  very  natural 
that  he  should  indicate  Boston,  as  my  friend  from  Georgia  might,  perhaps, 
have  thought  of  Savannah,  or  my  friend  from  South  Carolina  might  have 
indicated  Charleston,  or  the  senator  from  Louisiana  might  have  indicated 
New  Orleans.  But  I,  living  at  the  head  of  the  great  lakes,  would  have 


APPENDIX  249 

made  the  computation  from  Chicago,  and  my  friend  from  Missouri  would 
have  thought  it  would  have  been  very  well,  perhaps,  to  take  it  from  St.  Louis. 
When  you  are  making  this  computation,  I  respectfully  submit  you  must 
make  the  calculation  from  the  sea-board  to  the  centre  of  the  continent, 
and  not  charge  transportation  all  the  way  from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific ; 
for  suppose  you  do  not  construct  this  road,  and  these  goods  come  by  ship 
to  Boston,  it  will  cost  something  to  take  them  by  railroad  to  Chicago,  and 
a  little  more  to  take  them  by  railroad  to  the  Missouri  River,  half  way  back 
to  San  Francisco  again.  If  you  select  the  centre  of  the  continent,  the  great 
heart  and  centre  of  the  Republic  —  the  Mississippi  Valley  —  as  the  point 
at  which  you  are  to  concentrate  your  trade,  and  from  which  it  is  to  diverge, 
you  will  find  that  the  transportation  of  it  by  railroad  wrould  not  be  much 
greater  from  San  Francisco  than  from  Boston.  It  would  be  nearly  the 
same  from  the  Pacific  that  it  is  from  the  Atlantic;  and  the  calculation 
must  be  made  in  that  point  of  view.  There  is  the  centre  of  consump 
tion,  and  the  centre  of  those  great  products  that  are  sent  abroad  in  all 
quarters  to  pay  for  articles  imported.  The  centre  of  production,  the 
centre  of  consumption,  the  future  centre  of  the  population  of  the  con 
tinent,  is  the  point  to  which,  and  from  which,  your  calculation  should  be 
made. 

Then,  sir,  if  it  costs  sixty  dollars  per  ton  for  transportation  from  San 
Francisco  to  Boston  by  railroad,  half  way  you  may  say  it  will  cost  thirty 
dollars  a  ton.  The  result,  then,  of  coming  from  San  Francisco  to  the 
centre  by  railroad  would  be  to  save  transportation  by  ship  from  San 
Francisco  to  Boston,  in  addition  to  the  railroad  transportation  into  the 
interior. 

But,  sir,  I  dissent  from  a  portion  of  the  gentleman's  argument,  so  far  as 
it  relates  to  the  transportation  even  from  San  Francisco  to  Boston.  I 
admit  that  heavy  articles  of  cheap  value  and  great  bulk  would  go  by  ship, 
that  being  the  cheapest  mode  of  communication ;  but  light  articles,  costly 
articles,  expensive  articles,  those  demanded  immediately,  and  subject  to 
decay  from  long  voyages  and  delays,  would  come  directly  across  by  rail 
road,  and  what  you  would  save  in  time  would  be  more  than  the  extra 
expense  of  the  transportation.  You  must  add  to  that  the  risk  of  the  tropics, 
which  destroys  many  articles ;  and  the  process  which  is  necessary  to  be 
gone  through  with  to  prepare  articles  for  the  sea-voyage  is  to  be  taken 
into  the  account.  I  have  had  occasion  to  witness  that  evil  in  one  article  of 
beverage  very  familiar  to  you  all.  Let  any  man  take  one  cup  of  tea  that 
came  from  China  to  Russia  overland,  without  passing  twice  under  the 
equator,  and  he  will  never  be  reconciled  to  a  cup  of  tea  that  has  passed 
under  the  equator.  The  genuine  article,  that  has  not  been  manipulated 
and  prepared  to  pass  under  the  equator,  is  worth  tenfold  more  than  that 
wliich  we  receive  here.  Preparation  is  necessary  to  enable  it  to  pass  the 
tropics,  and  the  long,  damp  voyage  makes  as  much  difference  in  the  article 
of  tea  as  the  difference  between  a  green  apple  arid  a  dried  apple,  green 
corn  and  dried  corn,  sent  abroad.  So  you  will  find  it  to  be  with  fruits ;  so 
it  will  be  with  all  the  expensive  and  precious  articles,  and  especially  those 


250  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

liable  to  decay  and  to  injury,  either  by  exposure  to  a  tropical  climate  or 
to  the  moisture  of  a  long  sea-voyage. 

Then,  sir,  in  a  commercial  point  of  view,  this  road  will  be  of  vast  import 
ance.  There  is  another  consideration  that  I  will  allude  to  for  a  moment. 
It  will  extend  our  trade  more  than  any  other  measure  that  you  can  devise, 
certainly  more  than  any  one  that  you  now  have  in  contemplation.  The 
people  are  all  anxious  for  the  annexation  of  Cuba  as  soon  as  it  can  be  ob 
tained  on  fair  and  honorable  terms  —  and  why  ?  In  order  to  get  the  small, 
pitiful  trade  of  that  island.  We  all  talk  about  the  great  importance  of 
Central  America  in  order  to  extend  our  commerce;  it  is  valuable  to  the 
extent  it  goes.  But  Cuba,  Central  America,  and  all  the  islands  surrounding 
them  put  together,  are  not  a  thousandth  part  of  the  value  of  the  great  East 
India  trade  that  would  be  drawn  first  to  our  western  coast,  and  then  across 
to  the  Valley  of  the  Mississippi,  if  this  railroad  be  constructed.  Sir,  if  we 
intend  to  extend  our  commerce  —  if  we  intend  to  make  the  great  ports  of 
the  world  tributary  to  our  wealth,  we  must  prosecute  our  trade  eastward 
or  westward,  as  you  please ;  we  must  penetrate  the  Pacific,  its  islands,  and 
its  continent,  where  the  great  mass  of  the  human  family  reside  —  where  the 
articles  that  have  built  up  the  powerful  nations  of  the  world  have  always 
come  from.  That  is  the  direction  in  which  we  should  look  for  the  expan 
sion  of  our  commerce  and  of  our  trade.  That  is  the  direction  our  public 
policy  should  take  —  a  direction  that  is  facilitated  by  the  great  work  now 
proposed  to  be  made. 

I  care  not  whether  you  look  at  it  in  a  commercial  point  of  view,  as  a 
matter  of  administrative  economy  at  home,  as  a  question  of  military  de 
fence,  or  in  reference  to  the  building  up  of  the  national  wealth,  and  power, 
and  glory;  it  is  the  great  measure  of  the  age  —  a  measure  that  in  my 
opinion  has  been  postponed  too  long  —  and  I  frankly  confess  to  you  that 
I  regard  the  postponement  to  next  December  to  mean  till  after  the  next 
Presidential  election.  No  man  hopes  or  expects,  when  you  have  not  time 
to  pass  it  in  the  early  spring,  at  the  long  session,  that  you  are  going  to 
consider  it  at  the  short  session.  When  you  come  here  at  the  next  session, 
the  objection  will  be  that  you  must  not  bring  forward  a  measure  of  this 
magnitude,  because  it  will  affect  the  political  relations  of  parties,  and  it 
will  be  postponed  then,  as  it  was  two  years  ago,  to  give  the  glory  to  the 
incoming  administration,  each  party  probably  thinking  that  it  would  have 
the  honor  of  carrying  out  the  measure.  Hence,  sir,  I  regard  the  proposi 
tion  of  postponement  till  December  to  mean  till  after  the  election  of  1860. 

I  desire  to  see  all  the  pledges  made  in  the  last  contest  redeemed  during 
this  term,  and  let  the  next  President,  and  the  parties  under  him,  redeem 
the  pledges  and  obligations  assumed  during  the  next  campaign.  The  people 
of  all  parties  at  the  last  Presidential  election  decreed  that  this  road  was  to 
be  made.  The  question  is  now  before  us.  We  have  time  to  consider  it. 
We  have  all  the  means  necessary,  as  much  now  as  we  can  have  at  any 
other  time.  The  senator  from  Massachusetts  intimates  that,  the  treasury 
being  bankrupt  now,  we  cannot  afford  the  money.  That  senator  also  re 
marked  that  we  were  just  emerging  from  a  severe  commercial  crisis  —  a 


APPENDIX  251 

great  commercial  revulsion  —  which  had  carried  bankruptcy  in  its  train. 
If  we  have  just  emerged  from  it,  if  we  have  passed  it,  this  is  the  very  time 
of  all  others  when  a  great  enterprise  should  be  begun.  It  might  have  been 
argued  when  we  saw  that  crisis  coming,  before  it  reached  us,  that  we  should 
furl  our  sails  and  trim  our  ships  for  the  approaching  storm;  but  when  it 
has  exhausted  its  rage,  when  all  the  mischief  has  been  done  that  could  be 
inflicted,  when  the  bright  sun  of  day  is  breaking  forth,  when  the  sea  is  be 
coming  calm,  and  there  is  but  little  visible  of  the  past  tempest,  when  the 
nausea  of  sea-sickness  is  succeeded  by  joyous  exhilaration,  inspired  by  the 
hope  of  a  fair  voyage,  let  men  feel  elated  and  be  ready  to  commence  a 
great  work  like  this,  so  as  to  complete  it  before  another  commercial  crisis 
or  revulsion  shall  come  upon  us. 

Sir,  if  you  pass  this  bill,  no  money  can  be  expended  under  it  until  one 
section  of  the  road  has  been  made.  The  surveys  must  be  completed,  the 
route  must  be  located,  the  land  set  aside  and  surveyed,  and  a  section  of 
the  road  made,  before  a  dollar  can  be  drawn  from  the  treasury.  If  you 
can  pass  the  bill  now,  it  cannot  make  any  drain  on  the  treasury  for  at 
least  two  years  to  come;  and  who  doubts  that  all  the  effects  of  the  late 
crisis  will  have  passed  away  before  the  expiration  of  those  two  years. 

Mr.  President,  this  is  the  auspicious  time,  either  with  a  view  to  the  in 
terests  of  the  country,  or  to  that  stagnation  which  exists  between  political 
parties,  which  is  calculated  to  make  it  a  measure  of  the  country  rather 
than  a  partisan  measure,  or  to  the  commercial  and  monetary  affairs  of  the 
nation,  or  with  reference  to  the  future.  Look  upon  it  in  any  point  of  view, 
now  is  the  time ;  and  I  am  glad  that  the  senator  from  Louisiana  has  indi 
cated,  as  I  am  told  he  has,  that  the  motion  for  postponement  is  a  test 
question ;  for  I  confess  I  shall  regard  it  as  a  test  vote  on  a  Pacific  railroad 
during  this  term,  whatever  it  may  be  in  the  future.  I  hope  that  we  shall 
pass  the  bill  now. 


LAST  SPEECH   IN  CONGRESS  —  FINAL  PLEA 
FOR  THE   UNION 

(Delivered  in  the  Senate,  January  3,  1861) 

MR.  PRESIDENT:  No  act  of  my  public  life  has  ever  caused  me  so  much 
regret  as  the  necessity  of  voting  in  the  special  committee  of  thirteen  for 
the  resolution  reporting  to  the  Senate  our  inability  to  agree  upon  a  general 
plan  of  adjustment  which  would  restore  peace  to  the  country  and  insure 
the  integrity  of  the  Union.  If  we  wish  to  understand  the  real  causes  which 
have  produced  such  widespread  and  deep-seated  discontent  in  the  slave- 
holding  States,  we  must  go  back  beyond  the  recent  Presidential  election, 
and  trace  the  origin  and  history  of  the  slavery  agitation  from  the  period 
when  it  first  became  an  active  element  in  Federal  politics.  Without 
fatiguing  the  Senate  with  tedious  details,  I  may  be  permitted  to  assume, 
without  the  fear  of  successful  contradiction,  that  whenever  the  Federal 
Government  has  attempted  to  decide  and  control  the  slavery  question 
in  the  newly  acquired  Territories,  regardless  of  the  wishes  of  the  inhabi 
tants,  alienation  of  feeling,  sectional  strife,  and  discord  have  ensued ;  and 
whenever  Congress  has  refrained  from  such  interference,  harmony  and 
fraternal  feeling  have  been  restored.  The  whole  volume  of  our  nation's 
history  may  be  confidently  appealed  to  in  support  of  this  proposition. 
The  most  memorable  instances  are  the  fearful  sectional  controversies 
which  brought  the  Union  to  the  verge  of  disruption  in  1820  and  again  in 
1850.  It  was  the  Territorial  question  in  each  case  which  presented  the 
chief  points  of  difficulty,  because  it  involved  the  irritating  question  of  the 
relative  political  power  of  the  two  sections.  All  the  other  questions,  which 
entered  into  and  served  to  increase  the  slavery  agitation,  were  deemed  of 
secondary  importance,  and  dwindled  into  insignificance  so  soon  as  the 
Territorial  question  was  definitely  settled. 

From  the  period  of  the  organization  of  the  Federal  Government,  under 
the  Constitution  in  1789,  down  to  1820,  all  the  Territorial  Governments 
had  been  organized  on  the  basis  of  non-interference  by  Congress  with  the 
domestic  institutions  of  the  people.  During  that  period  several  new  Terri 
tories  were  organized,  including  Tennessee,  Louisiana,  Missouri,  and  Ala 
bama.  In  no  one  of  the  Territories  did  Congress  attempt  to  interfere  with 
the  question  of  slavery,  either  to  introduce  or  exclude,  protect  or  pro 
hibit  it.  During  all  this  period  there  was  peace  and  good-will  between 
the  people  of  all  parts  of  the  Union,  so  far  as  the  question  of  slavery  was 
concerned. 

But  the  first   time    Congress  ever   attempted    to   interfere  with  and 


APPENDIX  253 

control  that  question  regardless  of  the  wishes  of  the  people  interested  in 
it,  the  Union  was  put  in  jeopardy,  and  was  only  saved  from  dissolution 
by  the  adoption  of  the  compromise  of  1820.  In  the  famous  Missouri  con 
troversy,  the  majority  of  the  North  demanded  that  Congress  should  pro 
hibit  slavery  forever  in  all  the  territory  acquired  from  France,  extending 
from  the  State  of  Louisiana  to  the  British  possessions  on  the  north,  and 
from  the  Mississippi  to  the  Rocky  Mountains.  The  South,  and  the  conser 
vative  minority  of  the  North,  on  the  contrary,  stood  firm  upon  the  ground 
of  non-intervention,  denying  the  right  of  Congress  to  touch  the  subject. 
They  did  not  ask  Congress  to  interfere  for  protection,  nor  for  any  purpose, 
while  they  opposed  the  right  and  justice  of  exclusion.  Thus,  each  party, 
with  their  respective  positions  distinctly  defined  —  the  one  for,  the  other 
against,  Congressional  intervention  —  maintained  its  position  with  des 
perate  persistency,  until  disunion  seemed  inevitable,  when  a  compromise 
was  effected  by  an  equitable  partition  of  the  territory  between  the  two 
sections  on  the  line  of  36°  30',  prohibiting  slavery  on  the  one  side  and  per 
mitting  it  on  the  other. 

In  the  adoption  of  this  compromise,  each  party  yielded  one  half  of  its 
claim  for  the  sake  of  the  Union.  It  was  designed  to  form  the  basis  of  per 
petual  peace  on  the  slavery  question,  by  establishing  a  rule  in  accordance 
with  which  all  future  controversy  would  be  avoided.  The  line  of  partition 
was  distinctly  marked  so  far  as  our  territory  might  extend,  and  by  irre 
sistible  inference,  the  spirit  of  the  compromise  required  the  extension  of 
the  line  on  the  same  parallel  whenever  we  should  extend  our  Territorial 
limits.  The  North  and  the  South  —  although  each  was  dissatisfied  with 
the  terms  of  the  settlement,  each  having  surrendered  one  half  of  its  claim 
—  by  common  consent  agreed  to  acquiesce  in  it,  and  abide  by  it  as  a  per 
manent  basis  of  peace  on  the  slavery  question.  It  is  true,  that  there  were 
a  few  discontented  spirits  in  both  sections  who  attempted  to  renew  the 
controversy  from  time  to  time;  but  the  deep  Union  feeling  prevailed, 
and  the  masses  of  the  people  were  disposed  to  stand  by  the  settlement  as 
the  surest  means  of  averting  future  difficulties. 

Peace  was  restored,  fraternal  feeling  returned,  and  wre  were  a  happy 
and  united  people  so  long  as  we  adhered  to,  and  carried  out  in  good  faith, 
the  Missouri  Compromise,  according  to  its  spirit  as  well  as  its  letter.  In 
1845,  when  Texas  was  annexed  to  the  Union,  the  policy  of  an  equitable 
partition,  on  the  line  of  36°  30',  was  adhered  to,  and  carried  into  effect  by 
the  extension  of  the  line  so  far  westward  as  the  new  acquisition  might 
reach.  It  is  true,  there  was  much  diversity  of  opinion  as  to  the  propriety 
and  wisdom  of  annexing  Texas.  In  the  North  the  measure  was  opposed 
by  large  numbers  upon  the  distinct  ground  that  it  was  enlarging  the  area 
of  slave  territory  within  the  Union ;  and  in  the  South  it  probably  received 
much  additional  support  for  the  same  reason ;  but,  while  it  may  have  been 
opposed  and  supported,  in  some  degree,  north  and  south,  from  these  con 
siderations,  no  considerable  number  in  either  section  objected  to  it  upon 
the  ground  that  it  extended  and  carried  out  the  policy  of  the  Missouri 
Compromise,  The  objection  was  solely  to  the  acquisition  of  the  country, 


254  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

and  not  to  the  application  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  to  it,  if  acquired. 
No  fair-minded  man  could  deny  that  every  reason  that  induced  the  adop 
tion  of  the  line  in  1820  demanded  its  extension  through  Texas,  and  every 
new  acquisition,  whenever  we  enlarged  our  territorial  possessions  in  that 
direction.  No  man  would  have  been  deemed  faithful  to  the  obligations  of 
the  Missouri  Compromise  at  that  day,  who  was  opposed  to  its  application 
to  future  acquisitions. 

The  record  shows  that  Texas  was  annexed  to  the  Union  upon  the  ex 
press  condition  that  the  Missouri  Compromise  should  be  extended,  and 
made  applicable  to  the  country,  so  far  as  our  new  boundaries  might  reach. 
The  history  of  that  acquisition  will  show  that  I  not  only  supported  the 
annexation  of  Texas,  but  that  I  urged  the  necessity  of  applying  the  Missouri 
Compromise  to  it,  for  the  purpose  of  extending  it  through  New  Mexico 
and  California  to  the  Pacific  Ocean,  whenever  we  should  acquire  those 
Territories,  as  a  means  of  putting  an  end  to  the  slavery  agitation  forever. 

The  annexation  of  Texas  drew  after  it  the  war  with  Mexico,  and  the 
treaty  of  peace  left  us  in  possession  of  California  and  New  Mexico.  This 
large  acquisition  of  new  territory  was  made  the  occasion  for  renewing  the 
Missouri  controversy.  The  agitation  of  1849-50  was  a  second  edition  of 
that  of  1819-20.  It  was  stimulated  by  the  same  motives,  aiming  at  the 
same  ends,  and  enforced  by  the  same  arguments.  The  Northern  majority 
invoked  the  intervention  of  Congress  to  prohibit  slavery  everywhere  in 
the  Territories  of  the  United  States,  —  both  sides  of  the  Missouri  line,  — 
south  as  well  as  north  of  36°  30'.  The  South  together  with  a  conservative 
minority  in  the  North,  stood  firmly  upon  the  ground  of  non-intervention, 
denying  the  right  of  Congress  to  interfere  with  the  subject,  but  avowing 
a  willingness,  in  the  spirit  of  concession,  for  the  sake  of  peace  and  the 
Union,  to  adhere  to  and  carry  out  the  policy  of  an  equitable  partition  on 
the  line  of  36°  30'  to  the  Pacific  Ocean,  in  the  same  sense  in  which  it  was 
adopted  in  1820,  and  according  to  the  understanding  when  Texas  was 
annexed  in  1845.  Every  argument  and  reason,  every  consideration  of 
patriotism  and  duty,  which  induced  the  adoption  of  the  policy  in  1820, 
and  its  application  to  Texas  in  1845,  demanded  its  application  to  Cali 
fornia  and  New  Mexico  in  1848.  The  peace  of  the  country,  the  fraternal 
feelings  of  all  its  parts,  the  safety  of  the  Union,  all  were  involved. 

Under  these  circumstances,  as  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Territo 
ries,  I  introduced  into  the  Senate  the  following  proposition,  which  was 
adopted  by  a  vote  of  thirty-three  to  twenty-one  in  the  Senate,  but  re 
jected  in  the  House  of  Representatives  : 

"That  the  line  of  36°  30'  of  north  latitude,  known  as  the  Missouri  Com 
promise  line  as  defined  by  the  eighth  section  of  an  Act  entitled  an  Act  to 
authorize  the  people  of  the  Missouri  Territory  to  form  a  Constitution  and 
State  Government,  and  for  the  admission  of  such  State  into  the  Union  on 
an  equal  footing  with  the  original  States,  and  to  prohibit  slavery  in  certain 
Territories,  approved  March  6,  1820,  be,  and  the  same  is  hereby  declared 
to  extend  to  the  Pacific  Ocean;  and  the  said  eighth  section,  together  with 
the  compromise  therein  effected,  is  hereby  revived,  and  declared  to  be  in 


APPENDIX  255 

full  force  and  binding,  for  the  future  organization  of  the  Territories  of  the 
United  States,  in  the  same  sense,  and  with  the  same  understanding,  with 
which  it  was  originally  adopted." 

It  was  the  rejection  of  that  proposition  —  the  repudiation  of  the  policy 
of  an  equitable  partition  of  the  Territory  between  the  two  sections,  on 
the  line  of  36°  30'  —  which  reopened  the  floodgates  of  slavery  agitation 
and  deluged  the  whole  country  with  sectional  strife  and  bitterness,  until 
the  Union  was  again  brought  to  the  verge  of  disruption,  before  the  swell 
ing  tide  of  bitter  waters  could  be  turned  back,  and  passion  and  prejudice 
could  be  made  to  give  place  to  reason  and  patriotism. 

Such  was  the  condition  of  things  at  the  opening  of  the  session  of  1849-50, 
when  Mr.  Clay  resumed  his  seat  in  this  body. 

The  purest  patriots  in  the  land  had  become  alarmed  for  the  safety  of 
the  republic.  The  immortal  Clay,  whose  life  had  been  devoted  to  the 
rights,  interests,  and  glory  of  his  country,  had  retired  to  the  shades  of 
Ashland  to  prepare  for  another  and  better  world.  When,  in  his  retire 
ment,  hearing  the  harsh  and  discordant  notes  of  sectional  strife  and 
disunion,  he  consented,  at  the  earnest  solicitation  of  his  countrymen,  to 
resume  his  seat  in  the  Senate,  the  theatre  of  his  great  deeds,  to  see  if,  by 
his  experience,  his  wisdom,  the  renown  of  his  great  name,  and  his  strong 
hold  upon  the  confidence  and  affections  of  the  American  people,  he  could 
not  do  something  to  restore  peace  to  a  distracted  country.  From  the  mo 
ment  of  his  arrival  among  us,  he  became,  by  common  consent  and  as  a 
matter  of  course,  the  leader  of  the  Union  men.  His  first  idea  was  to  re 
vive  and  extend  to  the  Pacific  Ocean  the  Missouri  Compromise  line,  with 
the  same  understanding  and  legal  effect  in  which  it  had  been  adopted  in 
1820,  and  continued  through  Texas  in  1845.  I  was  one  of  his  humble 
followers  and  trusted  friends  in  endeavoring  to  carry  out  that  policy,  and, 
in  connection  with  others,  at  his  special  request,  carefully  canvassed  both 
Houses  of  Congress  to  ascertain  whether  it  was  possible  to  obtain  a  majority 
vote  in  each  House  for  the  measure.  We  found  no  difficulty  with  the 
Southern  Senators  and  Representatives,  and  could  secure  the  cooperation 
of  a  minority  from  the  North;  but  not  enough  to  give  us  a  majority  in 
both  Houses.  Hence,  the  Missouri  Compromise  was  abandoned  by  its 
friends,  not  from  choice,  but  from  inability  to  carry  it  into  effect  in  good  faith. 
It  was  with  extreme  reluctance  that  Mr.  Clay,  and  those  of  us  who  acted 
with  him  and  shared  his  confidence,  were  brought  to  the  conclusion  that 
we  must  abandon,  from  inability  to  carry  out,  the  line  of  policy  which  had 
saved  the  Union  in  1820,  and  given  peace  to  the  country  for  many  happy 
years. 

Finding  ourselves  unable  to  maintain  that  policy,  we  yielded  to  a  stern 
necessity,  and  turned  our  attention  to  the  discovery  of  some  other  plan 
by  which  the  existing  difficulties  could  be  settled  and  future  troubles 
avoided.  I  need  not  detail  the  circumstances  under  which  Mr.  Clay  brought 
forward  his  plan  of  adjustment,  which  received  the  sanction  of  the  two 
Houses  of  Congress  and  the  approbation  of  the  American  people,  and  is 


256  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 

familiarly  known  as  the  compromise  measures  of  1850.  These  measures 
were  designed  to  accomplish  the  same  results  as  the  act  of  1820,  but  in  a 
different  mode.  The  leading  feature  and  chief  merit  of  each  was  to  banish 
the  slavery  agitation  from  the  halls  of  Congress  and  the  arena  of  Federal 
politics.  The  act  of  1820  was  intended  to  attain  this  end  by  an  equitable 
partition  of  the  Territories  between  the  contending  sections.  The  acts 
of  1850  were  designed  to  attain  the  same  end,  by  remitting  the  whole  ques 
tion  of  slavery  to  the  decision  of  the  people  of  the  Territories,  subject  to 
the  limitations  of  the  Constitution,  and  let  the  Federal  courts  determine 
the  validity  and  constitutionality  of  the  Territorial  enactments  from  time 
to  time,  as  cases  should  arise  and  appeals  should  be  taken  to  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States.  The  one,  proposed  to  settle  the  question  by 
a  geographical  line  and  equitable  partition;  and  the  other  by  the  princi 
ples  of  popular  sovereignty,  in  accordance  with  the  Constitution.  The 
object  of  both  being  the  same,  I  supported  each  in  turn,  as  a  means  of 
attaining  a  desirable  end. 

After  the  compromise  measures  of  1850  had  become  the  law  of  the 
land,  those  who  had  opposed  their  enactment  appealed  to  their  constitu 
ents  to  sustain  them  in  their  opposition,  and  implored  them  not  to 
acquiesce  in  the  principles  upon  which  they  were  founded,  and  never  to 
cease  to  war  upon  them  until  they  should  be  annulled  and  effaced  from 
the  statute-book.  The  contest  before  the  people  was  fierce  and  bitter, 
accompanied  sometimes  with  acts  of  violence  and  intimidation;  but, 
fortunately,  Mr.  Clay  lived  long  enough  to  feel  and  know  that  his  last 
great  efforts  for  the  peace  of  the  country  and  the  perpetuity  of  the 
Union  —  the  crowning  acts  of  a  brilliant  and  glorious  career  in  the  pub 
lic  service  —  had  met  the  approval  and  received  the  almost  unanimous 
endorsement  of  his  grateful  countrymen.  The  repose  which  the  country 
was  permitted  to  enjoy  for  a  brief  period  proved  to  be  a  temporary 
truce  in  the  sectional  conflict,  and  not  a  permanent  peace  upon  the 
slavery  question.  The  purpose  of  reopening  the  agitation  for  a  Congres 
sional  prohibition  of  slavery  in  all  the  Territories  whenever  an  oppor 
tunity  or  excuse  could  be  had,  seems  never  to  have  been  abandoned  by 
those  who  originated  the  scheme  for  partisan  purposes  in  1819  and  were 
baffled  in  their  designs  by  the  adoption  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  in 
1820,  and  who  renewed  the  attempt  in  1848,  but  were  again  doomed  to 
suffer  a  mortifying  defeat  in  the  adoption  of  the  compromise  measures 
of  1850.  The  opportunity  and  pretext  for  renewing  the  agitation  was 
discovered  by  those  who  had  never  abandoned  the  design,  when  it  be 
came  necessary,  in  1854,  to  pass  the  necessary  laws  for  the  organization 
of  the  Territories  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska.  The  necessity  for  the  organ 
ization  of  these  Territories,  in  order  to  open  and  protect  the  routes  of 
emigration  and  travel  to  California  and  Oregon,  could  not  be  denied. 
The  measure  could  not  be  postponed  longer  without  endangering  the 
peace  of  the  frontier  settlements,  and  incurring  the  hazards  of  an  Indian 
war,  growing  out  of  the  constant  collisions  between  the  emigrants  and 
the  Indian  tribes  through  whose  country  they  were  compelled  to  pass. 


APPENDIX  257 

Early  in  December,  1853,  Senator  Dodge,  of  Iowa,  introduced  a  bill 
for  the  organization  of  the  Territory  of  Nebraska,  which  was  referred  to 
the  committee  on  Territories,  of  which  I  was  chairman.  The  committee 
did  not  volunteer  their  services  on  the  occasion.  The  bill  was  referred  to 
us  by  the  vote  of  the  Senate,  and  our  action  was  in  discharge  of  a  plain 
duty  imposed  upon  us  by  an  express  command  of  that  body. 

The  first  question  which  addressed  itself  to  the  calm  and  deliberate 
consideration  of  the  committee,  was  —  Upon  what  basis  shall  the  organi 
zation  of  the  Territory  be  formed?  whether  upon  the  theory  of  a  geo 
graphical  line  and  an  equitable  partition  of  the  Territory  in  accordance 
with  the  compromise  of  1820,  which  had  been  abandoned  by  its  sup 
porters,  not  from  choice,  but  from  our  inability  to  carry  it  out,  or  upon 
the  principle  of  non-intervention  and  popular  sovereignty,  according  to 
the  compromise  measures  of  1850,  which  had  taken  the  place  of  the 
Missouri  Compromise? 

The  committee,  upon  mature  deliberation,  and  with  great  unanimity, 
decided  that  all  future  Territorial  organizations  should  be  formed  upon 
the  principles  and  model  of  the  compromise  measures  of  1850,  inasmuch 
as  in  the  recent  Presidential  election  [1852]  both  of  the  great  political 
parties  of  the  country  [Whig  and  Democratic]  of  which  the  Senate  was 
composed  stood  pledged  to  those  measures  as  a  substitute  for  the  act  of 
1820;  and  the  committee  instructed  me,  as  their  organ,  to  prepare  a  re 
port  and  draft  a  substitute  for  Mr.  Dodge's  bill  in  accordance  with  these 
views. 

No  sooner  was  this  report  and  bill  printed  and  laid  upon  the  tables  of 
Senators,  than  an  address  was  prepared  and  issued  over  the  signatures 
of  those  party  leaders  who  had  always  denounced  the  Missouri  Com 
promise  as  "a  crime  against  freedom  and  a  compact  with  infamy"  in  which 
this  bill  was  arraigned  as  "a  gross  violation  of  a  sacred  pledge,"  as  "a 
criminal  betrayal  of  precious  rights";  and  the  report  denounced  as  "a 
mere  invention  designed  to  cover  up  from  public  reprehension  meditated 
bad  faith." 

The  Missouri  Compromise  was  infamous  in  their  estimation,  so  long  as 
it  remained  upon  the  statute-book  and  was  carried  out  in  good  faith  as  a 
means  of  preserving  the  peace  of  the  country  and  preventing  the  slavery 
agitation  in  Congress.  But  it  suddenly  became  a  "sacred  pledge,"  a 
"solemn  compact  for  the  preservation  of  precious  rights,"  the  moment 
they  had  succeeded  in  preventing  its  faithful  execution  and  in  causing 
it  to  be  abandoned  when  it  ceased  to  be  an  impregnable  barrier  against 
slavery  agitation  and  sectional  strife.  The  bill  against  which  the  hue  and 
cry  was  raised,  and  the  crusade  preached,  did  not  contain  a  word  about 
the  Missouri  Compromise,  nor  in  any  manner  refer  to  it.  It  simply  allowed 
the  people  of  the  Territory  to  legislate  for  themselves  on  all  rightful  sub 
jects  of  legislation,  and  left  them  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic 
institutions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution. 

So  far  as  the  Missouri  act,  or  any  other  statute,  might  be  supposed  to 
conflict  with  the  right  of  self-government  in  the  Territories,  it  was,  by 

17 


258  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

inference,  rendered  null  and  void  to  that  extent,  and  for  no  other  purpose. 
Several  weeks  afterwards,  when  a  doubt  was  suggested  whether  under 
the  bill  as  it  stood  the  people  of  the  Territory  would  be  authorized  to  ex 
ercise  this  right  of  self-government  upon  the  slavery  question  during  the 
existence  of  the  Territorial  Government,  an  amendment  was  adopted,  on 
my  motion,  for  the  sole  and  avowed  purpose  of  removing  that  doubt  and 
securing  that  right,  in  accordance  with  the  compromise  measures  of  1850, 
as  stated  by  me  and  reported  in  the  debates  at  the  time. 

This  sketch  of  the  origin  and  progress  of  the  slavery  agitation  as  an 
element  of  political  power  and  partisan  warfare  covers  the  entire  period 
from  the  organization  of  the  Federal  Government  under  the  Constitution 
in  1789  to  the  present,  and  is  naturally  divided  into  three  parts: 

First.  From  1789,  when  the  Constitution  went  into  operation,  to 
1819-20,  when  the  Missouri  controversy  arose.  The  Territories  were  all 
organized  upon  the  basis  of  non-intervention  by  Congress  with  the  domestic 
affairs  of  the  people,  and  especially  upon  the  question  of  African  slavery. 
During  the  whole  of  this  period  domestic  tranquillity  and  fraternal  feel 
ing  prevailed. 

Second.  From  1820,  when  the  Missouri  Compromise  was  adopted,  to 
1848  and  1850,  when  it  was  repudiated  and  finally  abandoned,  all  the 
Territories  were  organized  with  reference  to  the  policy  of  an  equitable 
partition  between  the  two  sections  upon  the  line  of  36°  30'.  During  this 
period  there  was  no  serious  difficulty  upon  the  Territorial  question,  so 
long  as  the  Missouri  Compromise  was  adhered  to  and  carried  out  in 
good  faith. 

Third.  From  1850,  when  the  original  doctrine  of  non-intervention,  as 
it  prevailed  during  the  first  thirty  years,  was  reestablished  as  the  policy 
of  the  Government  in  the  organization  of  Territories  and  the  admission  of 
new  States,  to  the  present  time,  there  has  been  a  constant  struggle,  except 
for  a  short  interval,  to  overthrow  and  repudiate  the  policy  and  the  princi 
ples  of  the  compromise  measures  of  1850,  for  the  purpose  of  returning  to 
the  old  doctrine  of  Congressional  intervention  for  the  prohibition  of  slavery 
in  all  the  Territories,  south  as  well  as  north  of  the  Missouri  line,  regardless 
of  the  wishes  and  condition  of  the  people  inhabiting  the  country. 

In  view  of  these  facts,  I  feel  authorized  to  reaffirm  the  proposition  with 
which  I  commenced  my  remarks,  that  whenever  the  Federal  Government 
has  attempted  to  control  the  slavery  question  in  our  newly-acquired  Terri 
tories,  alienation  of  feeling,  discord,  and  sectional  strife  have  ensued ;  and 
whenever  Congress  has  refrained  from  such  interference,  peace,  harmony, 
and  good- will  have  returned.  The  conclusion  I  draw  from  these  premises 
is,  that  the  slavery  question  should  be  banished  forever  from  the  halls  of 
Congress  and  the  arena  of  Federal  politics,  by  an  irrepealable  Constitu 
tional  provision.  I  have  deemed  this  exposition  of  the  origin  and  progress 
of  the  slavery  agitation  essential  to  a  full  comprehension  of  the  difficulties 
with  which  we  are  surrounded,  and  the  remedies  for  the  evils  which  threaten 
the  disruption  of  the  republic.  The  immediate  causes  which  have 


APPENDIX  259 

precipitated  the  southern  country  into  revolution,  although  inseparably  con 
nected  with,  and  flowing  from,  the  slavery  agitation  whose  history  I  have 
portrayed,  are  to  be  found  in  the  result  of  the  recent  Presidential  election. 
I  hold  that  the  election  of  any  man,  no  matter  who,  by  the  American  peo 
ple,  according  to  the  Constitution,  furnishes  no  cause,  no  justification,  for 
the  dissolution  of  the  Union.  But  we  cannot  close  our  eyes  to  the  fact  that 
the  Southern  people  have  received  the  result  of  that  election  as  furnishing 
conclusive  evidence  that  the  dominant  party  of  the  North,  which  is  soon 
to  take  possession  of  the  Federal  Government  under  that  election,  are 
determined  to  invade  and  destroy  their  Constitutional  rights.  Believing 
that  their  domestic  institutions,  their  hearthstones  and  their  family  altars, 
are  to  be  assailed,  at  least  by  indirect  means,  and  that  the  Federal  Gov 
ernment  is  to  be  used  for  the  inauguration  of  a  line  of  policy  which  shall 
have  for  its  object  the  ultimate  extinction  of  slavery  in  all  the  States,  old 
as  well  as  new,  South  as  well  as  North,  the  Southern  people  are  prepared 
to  rush  wildly,  madly,  as  I  think,  into  revolution,  disunion,  war,  and  defy 
the  consequences,  whatever  they  may  be,  rather  than  to  wait  for  the  de 
velopment  of  events,  or  submit  tamely  to  what  they  think  is  a  fatal  blow 
impending  over  them  and  over  all  they  hold  dear  on  earth.  It  matters 
not,  so  far  as  we  and  the  peace  of  the  country  and  the  fate  of  the  Union 
are  concerned,  whether  these  apprehensions  of  the  Southern  people  are 
real  or  imaginary,  whether  they  are  well  founded  or  wholly  without  founda 
tion,  so  long  as  they  believe  them  and  are  determined  to  act  upon  them. 
The  Senator  from  Ohio  [Mr.  Wade],  whose  speech  was  received  with  so 
much  favor  by  his  political  friends  the  other  day,  referred  to  these  serious 
apprehensions,  and  acknowledged  his  belief  that  the  Southern  people  were 
laboring  under  the  conviction  that  they  were  well  founded.  He  was  kind 
enough  to  add  that  he  did  not  blame  the  Southern  people  much  for  what 
they  were  doing  under  this  fatal  misapprehension,  but  cast  the  whole 
blame  upon  the  Northern  Democracy;  and  referred  especially  to  his  col 
league  and  myself,  for  having  misrepresented  and  falsified  the  purposes 
and  policy  of  the  Republican  party,  and  for  having  made  the  Southern 
people  believe  our  misrepresentations !  He  does  not  blame  the  Southern 
people  for  acting  on  their  honest  convictions  in  resorting  to  revolution  to 
avert  an  impending  but  imaginary  calamity.  No,  he  does  not  blame 
them,  because  they  believe  in  the  existence  of  the  danger;  yet  he  will  do 
no  act  to  undeceive  them;  will  take  no  step  to  relieve  their  painful  appre 
hensions;  and  will  furnish  no  guarantees,  no  security,  against  the  dangers 
which  they  believe  to  exist,  and  the  existence  of  which  he  denies.  But, 
on  the  contrary,  he  demands  unconditional  submission,  threatens  war, 
and  talks  about  armies,  navies,  and  military  force  for  the  purpose  of  pre 
serving  the  Union  and  enforcing  the  laws!  I  submit  whether  this  mode 
of  treating  the  question  is  not  calculated  to  confirm  the  worst  apprehen 
sions  of  the  Southern  people  and  force  them  into  the  most  extreme  meas 
ures  of  resistance. 

I  regret  that  the  Senator  from  Ohio,  or  any  other  Senator,  should  have 
deemed   it   consistent  with   his   duty,  under  present  circumstances,  to 


260  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

introduce  partisan  politics,  and  attempt  to  manufacture  partisan  capital 
out  of  a  question  involving  the  peace  and  safety  of  the  country.  I  repeat 
what  I  have  said  on  another  occasion,  that,  if  I  know  myself,  my  action 
will  be  influenced  by  no  partisan  considerations  until  we  shall  have  rescued 
the  country  from  the  perils  which  environ  it.  But  since  the  Senator  has 
attempted  to  throw  the  whole  responsibility  of  the  present  difficulties 
upon  the  Northern  Democracy,  and  has  charged  us  with  misrepresenting 
and  falsifying  the  purposes  and  policy  of  the  Republican  party,  and  thereby 
deceiving  the  Southern  people,  I  feel  called  upon  to  repel  the  charge,  and 
show  that  it  is  without  a  shadow  of  foundation. 

No  man  living  would  rejoice  more  than  myself  in  the  conviction,  if  I 
could  only  be  convinced  of  the  fact,  that  I  have  misunderstood  and  con 
sequently  misrepresented  the  policy  and  designs  of  the  Republican  party. 
Produce  the  evidence  and  convince  me  of  my  error,  and  I  will  take  more 
pleasure  in  making  the  correction  and  repairing  the  injustice  than  I  ever 
have  taken  in  denouncing  what  I  believed  to  be  an  unjust  and  ruinous 
policy. 

With  the  view  of  ascertaining  whether  I  have  misapprehended  or  mis 
represented  the  policy  and  purposes  of  the  Republican  party,  I  will  now 
inquire  of  the  Senator,  and  yield  the  floor  for  an  answer,  whether  it  is  not 
the  policy  of  his  party  to  confine  slavery  within  its  present  limits  by  the 
action  of  the  Federal  Government?  Whether  they  do  not  intend  to  abolish 
and  prohibit  slavery  by  act  of  Congress,  notwithstanding  the  decision  of 
the  Supreme  Court  to  the  contrary,  in  all  the  Territories  we  now  possess 
or  may  hereafter  acquire  ?  In  short,  I  will  give  the  Senator  an  opportunity 
now  to  say  — 

Mr.  Wade.     Mr.  President. 

Mr.  Douglas.     One  other  question,  and  I  will  give  way. 

Mr.  Wade.     Very  well. 

Mr.  Douglas.  I  will  give  the  Senator  an  opportunity  of  saying  now 
whether  it  is  not  the  policy  of  his  party  to  exert  all  the  powers  of  the 
Federal  Government  under  the  Constitution,  according  to  their  interpre 
tation  of  the  instrument,  to  restrain  and  cripple  the  institution  of  slavery, 
with  a  view  to  its  ultimate  extinction  in  all  the  States,  old  as  well  as  new, 
south  as  well  as  north. 

Are  not  these  the  views  and  purposes  of  the  party,  as  proclaimed  by 
their  leaders,  and  understood  by  the  people,  in  speeches,  addresses,  ser 
mons,  newspapers,  and  public  meetings  ?  Now,  I  will  hear  his  answer. 

Mr.  Wade.  Mr.  President,  all  these  questions  are  most  pertinently  an 
swered  in  the  speech  the  Senator  is  professing  to  answer.  I  have  nothing 
to  add  to  it.  If  he  will  read  my  speech,  he  will  find  my  sentiments  upon 
all  these  questions. 

Mr.  Douglas.  Mr.  President,  I  did  not  expect  an  unequivocal  answer. 
I  know  too  well  that  the  Senator  will  not  deny  that  each  of  these  interroga 
tories  does  express  his  individual  policy  and  the  policy  of  the  Republican 
party  as  he  understands  it.  I  should  not  have  propounded  the  interroga 
tories  to  him  if  he  had  not  accused  me  and  the  Northern  Democracy  of 


APPENDIX  261 

having  misrepresented  the  policy  of  the  Republican  party,  and  with  hav 
ing  deceived  the  Southern  people  by  such  misrepresentations.  The  most 
obnoxious  sentiments  I  ever  attributed  to  the  Republican  party,  and 
that  not  in  the  South,  but  in  Northern  Illinois  and  in  the  strongholds  of 
Abolitionism,  was  that  they  intended  to  exercise  the  powers  of  the  Federal 
Government  with  a  view  to  the  ultimate  extinction  of  slavery  in  the 
Southern  States.  I  have  expressed  my  belief,  and  would  be  glad  to  be 
corrected  if  I  am  in  error,  that  it  is  the  policy  of  that  party  to  exclude 
slavery  from  all  the  Territories  we  now  possess  or  may  acquire,  with  a 
view  of  surrounding  the  slave  States  with  a  cordon  of  Abolition  States, 
and  thus  confine  the  institution  within  such  narrow  limits,  that  when  the 
number  increases  beyond  the  capacity  of  the  soil  to  raise  food  for  their 
subsistence,  the  institution  must  end  in  starvation,  colonization,  or  servile 
insurrection.  I  have  often  exposed  the  enormities  of  this  policy,  and  ap 
pealed  to  the  people  of  Illinois  to  know  whether  this  mode  of  getting  rid 
of  the  evils  of  slavery  could  be  justified  in  the  name  of  civilization,  human 
ity,  and  Christianity?  I  have  often  used  these  arguments  in  the  strongest 
abolition  portions  of  the  North,  but  never  in  the  South.  The  truth  is,  I 
have  always  been  very  mild  and  gentle  upon  the  Republicans  when  ad 
dressing  a  Southern  audience;  for  it  seemed  ungenerous  to  say  behind 
their  backs,  and  where  they  dare  not  go  to  reply  to  me,  those  things  which 
I  was  in  the  habit  of  saying  to  their  faces  and  in  the  presence  of  their  leaders 
where  they  were  in  the  majority. 

But  inasmuch  as  I  do  not  get  a  direct  answer  from  the  Senator  who 
makes  this  charge  against  the  Northern  Democracy,  as  to  the  purposes 
of  that  party  to  use  the  power  of  the  Federal  Government  under  their 
construction  of  the  Constitution,  with  a  view  to  the  ultimate  extinction 
of  slavery  in  the  States,  I  will  turn  to  the  record  of  their  President  elect, 
and  see  what  he  says  on  that  subject. 

Mr.  Lincoln  was  nominated  for  United  States  Senator  by  a  Republican 
State  Convention  at  Springfield  in  June,  1858.  Anticipating  the  nomina 
tion,  he  had  carefully  prepared  a  written  speech,  which  he  delivered  on  the 
occasion,  and  which,  by  order  of  the  convention,  was  published  among 
the  proceedings  as  containing  the  platform  of  principles  upon  which  the 
canvas  was  to  be  conducted.  .  .  .  You  are  told  by  the  President  elect 
that  this  Union  cannot  permanently  endure,  divided  into  free  and  slave 
States ;  that  these  States  must  all  become  free  or  all  slave,  all  become  one 
thing  or  all  the  other;  that  this  agitation  will  never  cease  until  the  oppo 
nents  of  slavery  have  restrained  its  expansion,  and  have  placed  it  where 
the  public  mind  will  be  satisfied  that  it  will  be  in  the  course  of  ultimate 
extinction.  Mark  the  language  : 

"Either  the  opponents  of  slavery  will  arrest  the  further  spread  of  it." 
We  are  now  told  that  the  object  of  the  Republican  party  is  to  prevent 
the  extension  of  slavery.     What  did  Mr.  Lincoln  say?    That  the  oppo 
nents  of  slavery  must  first  prevent  the  further  spread  of  it.     But  that  is 
not  all.     What  else  must  they  do? 


262  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

"And  place  it  where  the  public  mind  can  rest  in  the  belief  that  it  is  in 
the  course  of  ultimate  extinction." 

The  ultimate  extinction  of  slavery,  of  which  Mr.  Lincoln  was  then  speak 
ing,  related  to  the  States  of  this  Union.  He  had  reference  to  the  Southern 
States  of  this  Confederacy ;  for  in  the  next  sentence  he  says  that  the  States 
must  all  become  one  thing,  or  all  the  other —  "old  as  well  as  new,  North 
as  well  as  South  "  —  showing  that  he  meant  that  the  policy  of  the  Repub 
lican  party  was  to  keep  up  this  agitation  in  the  Federal  Government  until 
slavery  in  the  States  was  placed  in  the  process  of  ultimate  extinction. 
Now,  sir,  when  the  Republican  committee  have  published  an  edition  of 
Mr.  Lincoln's  speeches  containing  sentiments  like  these,  and  circulating 
it  as  a  campaign  document,  is  it  surprising  that  the  people  of  the  South 
should  suppose  that  he  was  in  earnest,  and  intended  to  carry  out  the  policy 
which  he  had  announced  ? 

I  regret  the  necessity  which  has  made  it  my  duty  to  reproduce  these 
dangerous  and  revolutionary  opinions  of  the  President  elect.  No  consid 
eration  could  have  induced  me  to  have  done  so  but  the  attempt  of  his 
friends  to  denounce  the  policy  which  Mr.  Lincoln  has  boldly  advocated,  as 
gross  calumnies  upon  the  Republican  party,  and  as  base  inventions  by  the 
Northern  Democracy,  to  excite  rebellion  to  the  southern  country.  I  should 
like  to  find  one  senator  on  that  side  of  the  Chamber,  in  the  confidence  of 
the  President  elect,  who  will  have  the  hardihood  to  deny  that  Mr.  Lincoln 
stands  pledged  by  his  public  speeches,  to  which  he  now  refers  constantly 
as  containing  his  present  opinions,  to  carry  out  the  policy  indicated  in  the 
speech  from  which  I  have  read.  I  take  great  pleasure  in  saying,  however, 
that  I  do  not  believe  the  rights  of  the  South  will  materially  suffer  under 
the  administration  of  Mr.  Lincoln.  I  repeat  what  I  have  said  on  another 
occasion,  that  neither  he  nor  his  party  will  have  the  power  to  do  any  act 
prejudicial  to  Southern  rights  and  interests,  if  the  Union  shall  be  preserved, 
and  the  Southern  States  shall  retain  a  full  delegation  in  both  Houses  of 
Congress.  With  a  majority  against  them  in  this  body,  and  in  the  House 
of  Representatives,  they  can  do  no  act,  except  to  enforce  the  laws,  without 
the  consent  of  those  to  whom  the  South  has  confided  her  interests;  and 
even  his  appointments  for  that  purpose  are  subject  to  our  advice  and  con 
firmation.  Besides,  I  still  indulge  the  hope  that  when  Mr.  Lincoln  shall 
assume  the  high  responsibilities  which  will  soon  devolve  upon  him,  he  will 
be  fully  impressed  with  the  necessity  of  sinking  the  politician  in  the  states 
man,  the  partisan  in  the  patriot,  and  regard  the  obligations  which  he  owes 
to  his  country  as  paramount  to  those  of  his  party.  In  view  of  these  con 
siderations,  I  had  indulged  the  fond  hope  that  the  people  of  the  Southern 
States  would  have  been  content  to  have  remained  in  the  Union  and  defend 
their  rights  under  the  Constitution,  instead  of  rushing  madly  into  revolu 
tion  and  disunion,  as  a  refuge  from  the  apprehended  dangers  which  may 
not  exist. 

But  this  apprehension  has  become  widespread  and  deep-seated  in  the 
Southern  people.  It  has  taken  possession  of  the  Southern  mind,  sunk 
deep  in  the  Southern  heart,  and  filled  them  with  the  conviction  that  their 


APPENDIX  263 

firesides,  their  family  altars,  and  their  domestic  institutions  are  to  be  ruth 
lessly  assailed  through  the  machinery  of  the  Federal  Government.  The 
Senator  from  Ohio  says  he  does  not  blame  you  Southern  Senators,  nor  the 
Southern  people,  for  believing  those  things;  and  yet,  instead  of  doing  those 
acts  which  will  relieve  your  apprehensions  and  render  it  impossible  that 
your  rights  should  be  invaded  by  Federal  power  under  any  administration, 
he  threatens  you  with  war,  armies,  military  force,  under  pretext  of  enforc 
ing  the  laws,  and  preserving  the  Union.  We  are  told  that  the  authority  of 
Government  must  be  vindicated ;  that  the  Union  must  be  preserved ;  that 
rebellion  must  be  put  down;  that  insurrection  must  be  suppressed,  and  the 
laws  must  be  enforced.  I  agree  to  all  this.  I  am  in  favor  of  doing  all  these 
things  according  to  the  Constitution  and  laws.  No  man  shall  go  further 
than  I  to  maintain  the  just  authority  of  the  Government,  to  preserve  the 
Union,  to  put  down  rebellion,  to  suppress  insurrection,  and  enforce  the 
laws.  I  would  use  all  the  powers  conferred  by  the  Constitution  for  this 
purpose.  But,  in  the  performance  of  these  important  and  delicate  duties, 
it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  those  powers  only  must  be  used,  and  such 
measures  employed,  as  are  authorized  by  the  Constitution  and  laws.  Things 
should  be  called  by  their  right  names;  and  facts  whose  existence  can  no 
longer  be  denied  should  be  acknowledged. 

May  Divine  Providence,  in  his  infinite  wisdom  and  mercy,  save  our 
country  from  the  humiliation  and  calamities  which  now  seem  almost  in 
evitable  I  South  Carolina  has  already  declared  her  independence  of  the 
United  States  —  has  expelled  the  Federal  authorities  from  her  limits,  and 
established  a  Government  de  facto,  with  a  military  force  to  sustain  it.  The 
revolution  is  complete,  there  being  no  man  within  her  limits  who  denies 
the  authority  of  the  Government  or  acknowledges  allegiance  to  that  of  the 
United  States.  There  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  seven  other  States  will 
soon  follow  her  example;  and  much  ground  to  apprehend  that  the  other 
slaveholding  States  will  follow  them. 

How  are  we  going  to  prevent  an  alliance  between  these  seceding  States, 
by  which  they  may  establish  a  Federal  Government,  at  least  de  facto,  for 
themselves?  If  they  shall  do  so,  and  expel  the  authorities  of  the  United 
States  from  their  limits,  as  South  Carolina  has  done,  and  others  are  about 
to  do,  so  that  there  shall  be  no  human  being  within  their  boundaries  who 
acknowledges  allegiance  to  the  United  States,  how  are  we  going  to  enforce 
the  laws?  Armies  and  navies  can  make  war,  but  cannot  enforce  laws  in 
this  country.  The  laws  can  be  enforced  only  by  the  civil  authorities, 
assisted  by  the  military  as  a  posse  comitatus  when  resisted  in  executing 
judicial  process.  Who  is  to  issue  the  judicial  process  in  a  State  where  there 
is  no  judge,  no  court,  no  judicial  functionary?  Who  is  to  perform  the 
duties  of  marshal  in  executing  the  process  where  no  man  will  or  dare  ac 
cept  office?  Who  are  to  serve  on  juries  while  every  citizen  is  particeps 
criminis  with  the  accused?  How  are  you  going  to  comply  with  the  Con 
stitution  in  respect  to  a  jury  trial  where  there  are  no  men  qualified  to 
serve  on  the  jury?  I  agree  that  the  laws  should  be  enforced.  I  hold  that 


264  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

our  Government  is  clothed  with  the  power  and  duty  of  using  all  the  means 
necessary  to  the  enforcement  of  the  laws,  according  to  the  Constitution  and 
laws.  The  President  is  sworn  to  the  faithful  performance  of  this  duty.  I 
do  not  propose  to  inquire,  at  this  time,  how  far  and  with  what  fidelity  the 
President  has  performed  that  duty.  His  conduct  and  duty  in  this  regard, 
including  acts  of  commission  and  omission,  while  the  rebellion  was  in  its 
incipient  stages,  and  when  confined  to  a  few  individuals,  present  a  very 
different  question  from  that  which  we  are  now  discussing,  after  the  revo 
lution  has  become  complete,  and  the  Federal  authorities  have  been  ex 
pelled,  and  the  Government  de  facto  put  into  practical  operation  and  in 
the  unrestrained  and  unresisted  exercise  of  all  the  powers  and  functions  of 
Government,  local  and  national. 

But  we  are  told  that  secession  is  wrong,  and  that  South  Carolina  had  no 
right  to  secede.  I  agree  that  it  is  wrong,  unlawful,  unconstitutional,  crimi 
nal.  In  my  opinion  South  Carolina  had  no  right  to  secede;  but  she  has 
done  it.  She  has  declared  her  independence  of  us,  effaced  the  last  vestige 
of  our  civil  authority,  established  a  foreign  Government,  and  is  now  en 
gaged  in  the  preliminary  steps  to  open  diplomatic  intercourse  with  the 
great  powers  of  the  world.  What  next?  If  her  act  was  illegal,  unconsti 
tutional,  and  wrong,  have  we  no  remedy?  Unquestionably  we  have  the 
right  to  use  all  the  power  and  force  necessary  to  regain  possession  of  that 
portion  of  the  United  States,  in  order  that  we  may  again  enforce  our  Con 
stitution  and  laws  upon  the  inhabitants.  We  can  enforce  our  laws  in  those 
States,  Territories,  and  places  only  which  are  within  our  possession.  It 
often  happens  that  the  territorial  rights  of  a  country  extend  beyond  the 
limits  of  their  actual  possessions.  That  is  our  case  at  present  in  respect 
to  South  Carolina.  Our  right  of  jurisdiction  over  that  State  for  Federal 
purposes,  according  to  the  Constitution,  has  not  been  destroyed  or  im 
paired  by  the  ordinance  of  secession,  or  any  act  of  the  convention,  or  of 
the  de  facto  Government.  The  right  remains ;  but  the  possession  is  lost  for 
the  time  being.  "How  shall  we  regain  the  possession?"  is  the  pertinent 
inquiry.  It  may  be  done  by  arms,  or  by  a  peaceable  adjustment  of  the 
matters  in  controversy. 

Are  we  prepared  for  war?  I  do  not  mean  that  kind  of  preparation  which 
consists  of  armies  and  navies,  and  supplies  and  munitions  of  war ;  but  are 
we  prepared  in  our  hearts  for  war  with  our  own  brethren  and  kindred? 
I  confess  I  am  not.  While  I  affirm  that  the  Constitution  is,  and  was  in 
tended  to  be,  a  bond  of  perpetual  Union ;  while  I  can  do  no  act  and  utter 
no  word  that  will  acknowledge  or  countenance  the  right  of  secession ;  while 
I  affirm  the  right  and  the  duty  of  the  Federal  Government  to  use  all  legit 
imate  means  to  enforce  the  laws,  put  down  rebellion,  and  suppress  insur 
rection,  I  will  not  meditate  war,  nor  tolerate  the  idea,  until  effort  at  peace 
ful  adjustment  shall  have  been  exhausted,  and  the  last  ray  of  hope  shall 
have  deserted  the  patriot's  heart.  Then,  and  not  till  then,  will  I  consider 
and  determine  what  course  my  duty  to  my  country  may  require  me  to 
pursue  in  such  an  emergency.  In  my  opinion,  war  is  disunion,  certain, 
inevitable,  irrevocable.  I  am  for  peace  to  save  the  Union. 


APPENDIX  265 

I  have  said  that  I  cannot  recognize  nor  countenance  the  right  of  seces 
sion.  Illinois,  situated  in  the  interior  of  the  continent,  can  never  acknowl 
edge  the  right  of  the  States  bordering  on  the  seas  to  withdraw  from  the 
Union  at  pleasure,  and  form  alliances  among  themselves  and  with  other 
countries,  by  which  we  shall  be  excluded  from  all  access  to  the  ocean, 
from  all  intercourse  or  commerce  with  foreign  nations.  We  can  never 
consent  to  be  shut  up  within  the  circle  of  a  Chinese  wall,  erected  and  con 
trolled  by  others  without  our  permission;  or  to  any  other  system  of  iso 
lation  by  which  we  shall  be  deprived  of  any  communication  with  the  rest 
of  the  civilized  world.  Those  States  which  are  situated  in  the  interior  of 
the  continent  can  never  assent  to  any  such  doctrine.  Our  rights,  our  inter 
ests,  our  safety,  our  existence  as  a  free  people,  forbid  it !  The  Northwestern 
States  were  ceded  to  the  United  States  before  the  Constitution  was  made, 
on  condition  of  perpetual  union  with  the  other  States.  The  Territories 
were  organized,  settlers  invited,  lands  purchased,  and  homes  made,  on 
the  pledge  of  your  plighted  faith  of  perpetual  union. 

When  there  were  but  two  hundred  thousand  inhabitants  scattered  over 
that  vast  region,  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi  was  deemed  by  Mr.  Jef 
ferson  so  important  and  essential  to  their  interests  and  prosperity,  that  he 
did  not  hesitate  to  declare  that  if  Spain  or  France  insisted  upon  retaining 
possession  of  the  mouth  of  that  river,  it  would  become  the  duty  of  the 
United  States  to  take  it  by  arms,  if  they  failed  to  acquire  it  by  treaty.  If 
the  possession  of  that  river,  with  jurisdiction  over  its  mouth  and  channel, 
was  indispensable  to  the  people  of  the  Northwest  when  we  had  two  hun 
dred  thousand  inhabitants,  is  it  reasonable  to  suppose  that  we  will  volun 
tarily  surrender  it  now  when  we  have  ten  millions  of  people?  Louisiana 
was  not  purchased  for  the  exclusive  benefit  of  the  few  Spanish  and  French 
residents  in  the  territory,  nor  for  those  who  might  become  residents.  These 
considerations  did  not  enter  into  the  negotiations  and  found  no  induce 
ments  to  the  acquisition.  Louisiana  was  purchased  with  the  National 
treasure,  for  the  common  benefit  of  the  whole  Union  in  general,  and  for 
the  safety,  convenience,  and  prosperity  of  the  Northwest  in  particular.  We 
paid  fifteen  million  dollars  for  the  territory.  We  have  expended  much 
more  than  that  sum  in  the  extinguishment  of  Indian  titles,  the  removal  of 
Indians,  the  survey  of  lands,  the  erection  of  custom-houses,  lighthouses, 
forts,  and  arsenals.  We  admitted  the  inhabitants  into  the  Union  on  an 
equal  footing  with  ourselves.  Now  we  are  called  upon  to  acknowledge  the 
moral  and  Constitutional  right  of  those  people  to  dissolve  the  Union  with 
out  the  consent  of  the  other  States;  to  seize  the  forts,  arsenals,  and  other 
public  property,  and  appropriate  them  to  their  own  use;  to  take  posses 
sion  of  the  Mississippi  River,  and  exercise  jurisdiction  over  the  same,  and 
to  reannex  herself  to  France,  or  remain  an  independent  nation,  or  to  form 
alliances  with  such  other  Powers  as  she,  in  the  plenitude  of  her  sovereign 
will  and  pleasure,  may  see  fit.  If  this  thing  is  to  be  done  —  peaceably  if 
you  can,  and  forcibly  if  you  must  —  all  I  propose  to  say  at  this  time  is, 
that  you  cannot  expect  us  of  the  Northwest  to  yield  our  assent  to  it,  nor 
to  acknowledge  your  right  to  do  it,  or  the  propriety  and  justice  of  the  act 


266  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 

The  respectful  attention  with  which  my  friend  from  Florida  [Mr.  Yulee] 
is  listening  to  me,  reminds  me  that  his  State  furnishes  an  apt  illustration 
of  this  modern  doctrine  of  secession.  We  paid  five  million  for  the  territory. 
We  spent  marvellous  sums  in  subduing  the  Indians,  extinguishing  Indian 
titles,  removal  of  Indians  beyond  her  borders,  surveying  the  lands,  build 
ing  lighthouses,  navy-yards,  forts,  and  arsenals,  with  untold  millions  for 
the  never-ending  Florida  claims.  I  assure  my  friend  that  I  do  not  refer 
to  these  things  in  an  offensive  sense,  for  he  knows  how  much  respect  I  have 
for  him,  and  has  not  forgotten  my  efforts  in  the  House  many  years  ago,  to 
secure  the  admission  of  his  State  into  the  Union,  in  order  that  he  might 
represent  her,  as  he  has  since  done  with  so  much  ability  and  fidelity  in  this 
body.  But  I  will  say  that  it  never  occurred  to  me  at  that  time  that  the 
State  whose  admission  into  the  Union  I  was  advocating  would  be  one  of 
the  first  to  join  in  a  scheme  to  break  up  the  Union.  I  submit  it  to  him 
whether  it  is  not  an  extraordinary  spectacle  to  see  that  State  which  has 
cost  us  so  much  blood  and  treasure,  turn  her  back  on  the  Union  which  has 
fostered  and  protected  her  when  she  was  too  feeble  to  protect  herself,  and 
seize  the  lighthouses,  navy-yards,  forts,  and  arsenals,  which,  although 
within  her  boundaries,  were  erected  with  National  funds,  for  the  benefit 
and  defence  of  the  whole  Union. 

I  do  not  think  I  can  find  a  more  striking  illustration  of  this  doctrine  of 
secession  than  was  suggested  to  my  mind  when  reading  the  President's 
last  annual  message.  My  attention  was  first  arrested  by  the  remarkable 
passage  that  the  Federal  Government  had  no  power  to  coerce  a  State  back 
into  the  Union  if  she  did  secede ;  and  my  admiration  was  unbounded  when 
I  found,  a  few  lines  afterwards,  a  recommendation  to  appropriate  money  to 
purchase  the  island  of  Cuba.  It  occurred  to  me  instantly  what  a  brilliant 
achievement  it  would  be  to  pay  Spain  three  hundred  million  dollars  for 
Cuba,  and  immediately  admit  the  island  into  the  Union  as  a  State,  and  let 
her  secede  and  reannex  herself  to  Spain  the  next  day,  when  the  Spanish 
Queen  would  be  ready  to  sell  the  island  again  for  half  price,  according  to 
the  gullibility  of  the  purchaser ! 

During  my  service  in  Congress  it  was  one  of  my  pleasant  duties  to  take 
an  active  part  in  the  annexation  of  Texas ;  and  at  a  subsequent  session  to 
write  and  introduce  the  bill  which  made  Texas  one  of  the  States  of  the 
Union.  Out  of  that  annexation  grew  the  war  with  Mexico,  in  which  we 
expended  one  hundred  million  dollars,  and  were  left  to  mourn  the  loss  of 
about  ten  thousand  as  gallant  men  as  ever  died  upon  a  battlefield  for  the 
honor  and  glory  of  their  country  !  We  have  since  spent  millions  of  money 
to  protect  Texas  against  her  own  Indians,  to  establish  forts  and  fortifica 
tions  to  protect  her  frontier  settlements  and  to  defend  her  against  the 
assaults  of  all  enemies  until  she  became  strong  enough  to  protect  herself. 
We  are  now  called  upon  to  acknowledge  that  Texas  has  a  moral,  just,  and 
constitutional  right  to  rescind  the  act  of  admission  into  the  Union ;  repu 
diate  her  ratification  of  the  resolutions  of  annexation ;  seize  the  forts  and 
public  buildings  which  were  constructed  with  our  money ;  appropriate  the 
same  to  her  own  use,  and  leave  us  to  pay  one  hundred  million  dollars  and 


APPENDIX  267 

to  mourn  the  death  of  the  brave  men  who  sacrificed  their  lives  in  defending 
the  integrity  of  her  soil.  In  the  name  of  Hardin  and  Bissell  and  Harris,  and 
the  seven  thousand  gallant  spirits  from  Illinois,  who  fought  bravely  upon 
every  battlefield  of  Mexico,  I  protest  against  the  right  of  Texas  to  sepa 
rate  herself  from  this  Union  without  our  consent. 

Mr.  Hemphill.  Mr.  President,  if  the  Senator  from  Illinois  will  allow 
me,  I  will  inquire  whether  there  were  no  other  causes  assigned  by  the 
United  States  for  the  war  with  Mexico  than  simply  the  defence  of  Texas  ? 

Mr.  Douglas.  I  will  answer  the  question.  We  undoubtedly  did  assign 
other  acts  as  causes  for  war  which  had  existed  for  years,  if  we  had  chosen 
to  treat  them  so ;  but  we  did  not  go  to  war  for  any  other  cause  than  the 
annexation  of  Texas,  as  is  shown  in  the  act  of  Congress  recognizing  the 
existence  of  war  with  Mexico,  in  which  it  is  declared  that  "war  exists  by 
the  act  of  the  Republic  of  Mexico."  The  sole  cause  of  grievance  which 
Mexico  had  against  us,  and  for  which  she  commenced  the  war,  was  our 
annexation  of  Texas.  Hence,  none  can  deny  that  the  Mexican  war  was 
solely  and  exclusively  the  result  of  the  annexation  of  Texas. 

Mr.  Hemphill.  I  will  inquire  further,  whether  the  United  States  paid 
anything  to  Texas  for  the  annexation  of  her  three  hundred  and  seventy 
thousand  square  miles  of  territory;  whether  the  United  States  has  not 
got  five  hundred  million  dollars  by  the  acquisition  of  California  through 
that  war  with  Mexico? 

Mr.  Douglas.  Sir,  we  did  not  pay  anything  for  bringing  Texas  into 
the  Union ;  for  we  did  not  get  any  of  her  lands,  except  that  we  purchased 
some  poor  lands  from  her  afterwards,  which  she  did  not  own,  and  paid 
her  ten  million  dollars  for  them.  But  we  did  spend  blood  and  treasure 
in  the  acquisition  and  subsequent  defence  of  Texas. 

Now,  sir,  I  will  answer  his  question  in  respect  to  California.  The  treaty 
of  peace  brought  California  and  New  Mexico  into  the  Union.  Our  people 
moved  there,  took  possession  of  the  lands,  settled  up  the  country,  and 
erected  a  State  of  which  the  United  States  have  a  right  to  be  proud.  We 
have  expended  millions  upon  millions  for  fortifications  in  California,  and 
for  navy-yards,  and  mints,  and  public  buildings,  and  land  surveys,  and 
feeding  the  Indians,  and  protecting  her  people.  I  believe  the  public  land 
sales  do  not  amount  to  more  than  one-tenth  of  the  cost  of  surveys,  accord 
ing  to  the  returns  that  have  been  made.  It  is  true  that  the  people  of  Cali 
fornia  have  dug  a  large  amount  of  gold  (principally  out  of  the  lands  be 
longing  to  the  United  States),  and  sold  it  to  us;  but  I  am  not  aware  that 
we  are  under  any  more  obligations  to  them  for  selling  it  to  us  than  they 
are  to  us  for  buying  it  of  them.  The  people  of  Texas,  during  the  same 
time,  have  probably  made  cotton  and  agricultural  productions  to  a  much 
larger  value,  and  sold  some  of  it  to  New  England,  and  some  to  old  Eng 
land.  I  suppose  the  benefits  of  the  bargain  were  reciprocal,  and  the  one 
was  under  just  as  much  obligation  as  the  other  for  the  mutual  benefits  of 
the  sale  and  purchase. 

The  question  remains  whether,  after  paying  fifteen  million  dollars 
for  California  —  as  the  Senator  from  Texas  has  called  my  attention  to 


268  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 

that  State  —  and  perhaps  as  much  more  in  protecting  and  defending  her, 
she  has  any  moral  or  constitutional  right  to  annul  the  compact  between 
her  and  the  Union,  and  form  alliances  with  foreign  Powers,  and  leave  us 
to  pay  the  cost  and  expenses?  I  cannot  recognize  any  such  doctrine.  In 
my  opinion  the  Constitution  was  intended  to  be  a  bond  of  perpetual  Union. 
It  begins  with  the  declaration  in  the  preamble,  that  it  is  made  in  order 
"to  form  a  more  perfect  Union,"  and  every  section  and  paragraph  in  the 
instrument  implies  perpetuity.  It  was  intended  to  last  forever,  and  was 
so  understood  when  ratified  by  the  people  of  the  several  States.  New 
York  and  Virginia  have  been  referred  to  as  having  ratified  with  the  reserved 
right  to  withdraw  or  secede  at  pleasure.  This  is  a  mistake.  The  corre 
spondence  between  General  Hamilton  and  Mr.  Madison  at  the  time  is  con 
clusive  on  this  point.  After  Virginia  had  ratified  the  Constitution,  General 
Hamilton,  who  was  a  member  of  the  New  York  convention,  wrote  to  Mr. 
Madison  that  New  York  would  probably  ratify  the  Constitution  for  a  term 
of  years,  and  reserve  the  right  to  withdraw  after  that  time,  if  certain 
amendments  were  not  sooner  adopted ;  to  which  Mr.  Madison  replied  that 
such  a  ratification  would  not  make  New  York  a  member  of  the  Union; 
that  the  ratification  must  be  unconditional,  in  toto  and  forever,  or  not  at 
all;  that  the  same  question  was  considered  at  Richmond  and  abandoned 
when  Virginia  ratified  the  Constitution.  Hence,  the  declaration  of  Virginia 
and  New  York,  that  they  had  not  surrendered  the  right  to  resume  the 
delegated  powers,  must  be  assumed  as  referring  to  the  right  of  revolution, 
which  nobody  acknowledges  more  freely  than  I  do,  and  not  to  the  right 
of  secession. 

The  Constitution  being  made  as  a  bond  of  perpetual  Union,  its  framers 
proceeded  to  provide  against  the  necessity  of  revolution  by  prescribing 
the  mode  in  which  it  might  be  amended ;  so  that  if,  in  the  course  of  time, 
the  condition  of  the  country  should  so  change  as  to  require  a  different 
fundamental  law,  amendments  might  be  made  peaceably,  in  the  manner 
prescribed  in  the  instrument,  and  thus  avoid  the  necessity  of  ever  resort 
ing  to  revolution.  Having  provided  for  a  perpetual  Union,  and  for  amend 
ments  to  the  Constitution,  they  next  inserted  a  clause  for  admitting  new 
States,  but  no  provision  for  the  withdrawal  of  any  of  the  other  States.  I  will 
not  argue  the  question  of  the  right  of  secession  any  further  than  to  enter 
my  protest  against  the  whole  doctrine.  I  deny  that  there  is  any  founda 
tion  for  it  in  the  Constitution,  in  the  nature  of  the  compact,  in  the  princi 
ples  of  the  Government,  or  in  justice,  or  in  good  faith. 

Nor  do  I  sympathize  at  all  in  the  apprehensions  and  misgivings  I  hear 
expressed  about  coercion.  We  are  told  that  inasmuch  as  our  Government 
is  founded  on  the  will  of  the  people,  or  the  consent  of  the  governed,  there 
fore  coercion  is  incompatible  with  republicanism.  Sir,  the  word  Govern 
ment  means  coercion.  There  can  be  no  Government  without  coercion.  Coercion 
is  the  vital  principle  upon  which  all  Governments  rest.  Withdraw  the 
right  of  coercion,  and  you  dissolve  your  Government.  If  every  man 
would  do  his  duty  and  respect  the  rights  of  his  neighbors  voluntarily, 
there  would  be  no  necessity  for  any  Government  on  earth.  The  necessity 


APPENDIX  269 

of  Government  is  found  to  consist  in  the  fact  that  some  men  will  not  do 
right  unless  coerced  to  do  so.  The  object  of  all  Government  is  to  coerce 
and  compel  every  man  to  do  his  duty,  who  would  not  otherwise  perform 
it.  Hence  I  do  not  subscribe  at  all  to  this  doctrine  that  coercion  is  not  to 
be  used  in  a  free  Government.  It  must  be  used  in  all  Governments,  no 
matter  what  their  form  or  what  their  principles. 

But  coercion  must  be  always  used  in  the  mode  prescribed  in  the  Con 
stitution  and  laws.  I  hold  that  the  Federal  Government  is,  and  ought  to 
be,  clothed  with  the  power  and  duty  to  use  all  the  means  necessary  to 
coerce  obedience  to  all  laws  made  in  pursuance  of  the  Constitution.  But 
the  proposition  to  subvert  the  de  facto  Government  of  South  Carolina,  and 
to  reduce  the  people  of  that  State  into  subjection  to  our  Federal  authority, 
no  longer  involves  the  question  of  enforcing  the  laws  in  a  country  within 
our  possession;  but  it  does  involve  the  question  whether  we  will  make 
war  on  a  State  which  has  withdrawn  her  allegiance  and  expelled  our  au 
thorities,  with  a  view  of  subjecting  her  to  our  possession  for  the  purpose  of 
enforcing  our  laws  within  her  limits. 

We  are  bound,  by  the  usages  of  nations,  by  the  laws  of  civilization,  by 
the  uniform  practice  of  our  Government,  to  acknowledge  the  existence  of 
a  Government  de  facto,  so  long  as  it  maintains  its  undivided  authority. 
When  Louis  Philippe  fled  from  the  throne  of  France,  Lamartine  suddenly 
one  morning  found  himself  the  head  of  a  provisional  Government;  I  be 
lieve  it  was  but  three  days  until  the  American  Minister  recognized  the 
Government  de  facto.  Texas  was  a  Government  de  facto,  not  recognized 
by  Mexico,  when  we  annexed  her;  not  recognized  by  Spain,  when  Texas 
revolted.  The  laws  of  nations  recognize  Governments  de  facto  where  they 
exercise  and  maintain  undivided  sway,  leaving  the  question  of  their  au 
thority  de  jure  to  be  determined  by  the  people  interested  in  the  Govern 
ment.  Now,  as  a  man  who  loves  the  Union,  and  desires  to  see  it  main 
tained  forever,  and  to  see  the  laws  enforced,  and  rebellion  put  down,  and 
insurrection  repressed,  and  order  maintained,  I  desire  to  know  of  my 
Union-loving  friends  on  the  other  side  of  the  Chamber  how  they  intend 
to  enforce  the  laws  in  the  seceding  States,  except  by  making  war,  con 
quering  them  first,  and  administering  the  laws  in  them  afterwards. 

In  my  opinion,  we  have  reached  a  point  where  disunion  is  inevitable, 
unless  some  compromise  founded  on  mutual  concession,  can  be  made. 
I  prefer  compromise  to  war.  I  prefer  concession  to  a  dissolution  of  the 
Union.  When  I  avow  myself  in  favor  of  compromise,  I  do  not  mean  that 
one  side  should  give  up  all  that  it  has  claimed,  nor  that  the  other  side 
should  give  up  everything  for  which  it  has  contended.  Nor  do  I  ask  any 
man  to  come  to  my  standard;  but  I  simply  say  that  I  will  meet  any  one 
half  way  who  is  willing  to  preserve  the  peace  of  the  country,  and  save  the 
Union  from  disruption  upon  principles  of  compromise  and  concession. 

In  my  judgment  no  system  of  compromise  can  be  effectual  and  per 
manent  which  does  not  banish  the  slavery  question  from  the  Halls  of  Con 
gress  and  the  arena  of  Federal  politics,  by  irrepealable  constitutional  pro 
vision.  We  have  tried  compromise  by  law,  compromise  by  act  of  Congress, 


270  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 

and  now  we  are  engaged  in  the  small  business  of  crimination  and  recrimina 
tion,  as  to  who  is  responsible  for  not  having  lived  up  to  them  in  good  faith, 
and  for  having  broken  faith.  I  want  whatever  compromise  is  agreed  to, 
placed  beyond  the  reach  of  party  politics  and  partisan  policy,  by  being 
made  irrevocable  in  the  Constitution  itself,  so  that  every  man  that  holds 
office  will  be  bound  by  his  oath  to  support  it. 

Why  cannot  you  Republicans  accede  to  the  reestablishment  and  exten 
sion  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  line  ?  You  have  sung  paeans  enough  in  its 
praise,  and  uttered  imprecations  and  curses  enough  upon  my  head  for 
its  repeal,  one  would  think,  to  justify  you  now  in  claiming  a  triumph  by  its 
reestablishment.  If  you  are  willing  to  give  up  your  party  feelings  —  to 
sink  the  partisan  in  the  patriot  —  and  help  me  to  reestablish  and  extend 
that  line,  as  a  perpetual  bond  of  peace  between  the  North  and  the  South, 
I  will  promise  you  never  to  remind  you  in  future  of  your  denunciations 
of  the  Missouri  Compromise,  so  long  as  I  was  supporting  it,  and  of  your 
praises  of  the  same  measure  when  we  removed  it  from  the  statute-book, 
after  you  had  caused  it  to  be  abandoned,  by  rendering  it  impossible  for  us 
to  carry  it  out.  I  seek  no  partisan  advantage ;  I  desire  no  personal  triumph. 
I  am  willing  to  let  by-gones  be  by-gones  with  every  man  who  in  this  exi 
gency  will  show  by  his  vote  that  he  loves  his  country  more  than  his  party. 

I  presented  to  the  committee  of  thirteen  and  also  introduced  into  the 
Senate  another  plan  by  which  the  slavery  question  may  be  taken  out  of 
Congress,  and  the  peace  of  the  country  maintained.  It  is  that  Congress 
shall  make  no  law  on  the  subject  of  slavery  in  the  Territories,  and  that 
the  existing  status  of  each  Territory  on  that  subject,  as  it  now  stands  by 
law,  shall  remain  unchanged  until  it  has  fifty  thousand  inhabitants,  when 
it  shall  have  the  right  of  self-government  as  to  its  domestic  policy;  but 
with  only  a  delegate  in  each  House  of  Congress  until  it  has  the  population 
required  by  the  Federal  ratio  for  a  representative  in  Congress,  when  it 
shall  be  admitted  into  the  Union  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  original 
States.  I  put  the  number  of  the  inhabitants  at  fifty  thousand  before  the 
people  of  the  Territory  shall  change  the  status  in  regard  to  slavery  as  a 
fair  compromise  between  the  conflicting  opinions  on  this  subject.  The 
two  extremes,  North  and  South,  unite  in  condemning  the  doctrine  of 
popular  sovereignty  in  the  Territories  upon  the  ground  that  the  first  few 
settlers  ought  not  to  be  permitted  to  decide  so  important  a  question  for 
those  who  are  to  come  after  them.  I  have  never  considered  that  objection 
well  taken,  for  the  reason  that  no  Territory  should  be  organized  with  the 
right  to  elect  a  Legislature  and  make  its  own  laws  upon  all  rightful  sub 
jects  of  legislation,  until  it  contains  a  sufficient  population  to  constitute 
a  political  community;  and  whenever  Congress  should  decide  that  there 
was  a  sufficient  population,  capable  of  self-government,  by  organizing  the 
Territory,  to  govern  themselves  upon  all  other  subjects,  I  could  never 
perceive  any  good  reason  why  the  same  political  community  should  not 
be  permitted  to  decide  the  slavery  question  for  themselves. 

But  since  we  are  now  trying  to  compromise  our  difficulties  upon  the 


APPENDIX  271 

basis  of  mutual  concessions,  I  propose  to  meet  both  extremes  half  way, 
by  fixing  the  number  at  fifty  thousand.  This  number,  certainly,  ought 
to  be  satisfactory  to  those  States  which  have  been  admitted  into  the 
Union  with  less  than  fifty  thousand  inhabitants.  Oregon,  Florida,  Arkan 
sas,  Mississippi,  Alabama,  Ohio,  Indiana,  and  Illinois,  were  each  admitted 
into  the  Union,  I  believe,  with  less  than  that  number  of  inhabitants.  Surely 
the  senators  and  representatives  from  those  States  do  not  doubt  that 
fifty  thousand  people  were  enough  to  constitute  a  political  community, 
capable  of  deciding  the  slavery  question  for  themselves.  I  now  invite 
attention  to  the  next  proposition. 

In  order  to  allay  all  apprehension,  North  or  South,  that  territory  would 
be  acquired  in  the  future  for  sectional  or  partisan  purposes,  by  adding  a 
large  number  of  free  States  on  the  North,  or  slave  States  on  the  South, 
with  the  view  of  giving  the  one  section  or  the  other  a  dangerous  political 
ascendency,  I  have  inserted  the  provision  that  "no  more  territory  shall 
be  acquired  by  the  United  States  except  by  treaty  on  the  concurrent  vote 
of  two-thirds  in  each  House  of  Congress."  If  this  provision  should  be  in 
corporated  into  the  Constitution,  it  would  be  impossible  for  either  section 
to  annex  any  territory  without  the  concurrence  of  a  large  portion  of  the 
other  section;  and  hence  there  need  be  no  apprehension  that  any  terri 
tory  would  be  hereafter  acquired  for  any  other  than  such  National  con 
siderations  as  would  commend  the  subject  to  the  approbation  of  both 
sections. 

I  have  also  inserted  a  provision  confirming  the  right  of  suffrage  and 
of  holding  office  to  white  men,  excluding  the  African  race.  I  have  also 
inserted  a  provision  for  the  colonization  of  free  negroes  from  such  States 
as  may  desire  to  have  them  removed,  to  districts  of  country  to  be  ac 
quired  in  Africa  and  South  America.  In  addition  to  these  I  have  adopted 
the  various  provisions  contained  in  the  proposition  of  the  Senator  from 
Kentucky,  in  reference  to  fugitive  slaves,  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the 
forts,  arsenals,  and  dockyards  in  the  slave  States  and  in  the  District  of 
Columbia,  and  the  other  provisions  for  the  safety  of  the  South.  I  believe 
this  to  be  a  fair  basis  of  amicable  adjustment.  If  you  of  the  Republican 
side  are  not  willing  to  accept  this,  nor  the  proposition  of  the  Senator  from 
Kentucky  [Mr.  Crittenden],  pray  tell  us  what  you  are  willing  to  do.  I 
address  the  inquiry  to  the  Republicans  alone,  for  the  reason  that  in  the 
committee  of  thirteen,  a  few  days  ago,  every  member  from  the  South, 
including  those  from  the  cotton  States  [Messrs.  Toombs  and  Davis],  ex 
pressed  their  readiness  to  accept  the  proposition  of  my  venerable  friend 
from  Kentucky  [Mr.  Crittenden]  as  a  final  settlement  of  the  controversy, 
if  tendered  and  sustained  by  the  Republican  members.  Hence,  the  sole 
responsibility  of  our  disagreement,  and  the  only  difficulty  in  the  way  of 
our  amicable  adjustment,  is  with  the  Republican  party. 

At  first  I  thought  your  reason  for  declining  to  adjust  this  question 
amicably  was  that  the  Constitution,  as  it  stands,  was  good  enough,  and 
that  you  would  make  no  amendment  to  it.  That  proposition  has  already 
been  waived.  The  great  leader  of  the  Republican  party  [Mr.  Seward]  by 


272  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

the  unanimous  concurrence  of  his  friends,  brought  into  the  committee  of 
thirteen  a  proposition  to  amend  the  Constitution.  Inasmuch,  therefore, 
as  you  are  willing  to  amend  the  instrument,  and  to  entertain  proposi 
tions  of  adjustment,  why  not  go  further  and  relieve  the  apprehensions  of 
the  Southern  people  on  all  points  where  you  do  not  intend  to  operate 
aggressively?  You  offer  to  amend  the  Constitution  by  declaring  that  no 
future  amendments  shall  be  made  which  shall  empower  Congress  to  in 
terfere  with  slavery  in  the  States. 

Now,  if  you  do  not  intend  to  do  any  other  act  prejudicial  to  their  con 
stitutional  rights  and  safety,  why  not  relieve  their  apprehensions  by 
inserting  in  your  own  proposed  amendment  to  the  Constitution,  such 
further  provisions  as  will,  in  like  manner,  render  it  impossible  for  you  to  do 
that  which  they  apprehend  you  intend  to  do,  and  which  you  have  no  pur 
pose  of  doing,  if  it  be  true  that  you  have  no  such  purpose  ?  For  the  purpose 
of  removing  the  apprehensions  of  the  Southern  people,  and  for  no  other 
purpose,  you  propose  to  amend  the  Constitution,  so  as  to  render  it  im 
possible,  in  all  future  time,  for  Congress  to  interfere  with  slavery  in  the 
States  where  it  may  exist  under  the  laws  thereof.  Why  not  insert  a  similar 
amendment  in  respect  to  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  and  in  the 
navy-yards,  forts,  arsenals,  and  other  places  within  the  limits  of  the  slave- 
holding  States,  over  which  Congress  has  exclusive  jurisdiction?  Why  not 
insert  a  similar  provision  in  respect  to  the  slave  trade  between  the  slave- 
holding  States  ?  The  Southern  people  have  more  serious  apprehensions  on 
these  points  than  they  have  of  your  direct  interference  with  slavery. 

If  their  apprehensions  on  these  several  points  are  groundless,  is  it  not 
a  duty  you  owe  to  God  and  your  country  to  relieve  their  anxiety  and 
remove  all  causes  of  discontent  ?  Is  there  not  quite  as  much  reason  for  re 
lieving  their  apprehensions  upon  these  points,  in  regard  to  which  they  are 
much  more  sensitive,  as  in  respect  to  your  direct  interference  in  the  States, 
where  they  know  you  acknowledge  that  you  have  no  power  to  interfere 
as  the  Constitution  now  stands?  The  fact  that  you  propose  to  give  the 
assurance  on  one  point  and  peremptorily  refuse  to  give  it  on  the  others, 
seems  to  authorize  the  presumption  that  you  do  intend  to  use  the  powers 
of  the  Federal  Government  for  the  purpose  of  direct  interference  with 
slavery  and  the  slave  trade  everywhere  else,  with  the  view  to  its  indirect 
effects  upon  slavery  in  the  States ;  or,  in  the  language  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  with 
the  view  of  its  "ultimate  extinction  in  all  the  States,  old  as  well  as  new, 
North  as  well  as  South." 

If  you  had  exhausted  your  ingenuity  in  devising  a  plan  for  the  express 
purpose  of  increasing  the  apprehensions  and  inflaming  the  passions  of  the 
Southern  people,  with  the  view  of  driving  them  into  revolution  and  dis 
union,  none  could  have  been  contrived  better  calculated  to  accomplish 
the  object  than  the  offering  of  that  one  amendment  to  the  Constitution, 
and  rejecting  all  others  which  are  infinitely  more  important  to  the  safety 
and  tranquillity  of  the  slaveholding  States. 

In  my  opinion,  we  have  now  reached  a  point  where  this  agitation  must 
close,  and  all  the  matters  in  controversy  be  finally  determined  by  consti- 


APPENDIX  273 

tutional  amendments,  or  civil  war  and  the  disruption  of  the  Union  are 
inevitable.  My  friend  from  Oregon  [Mr.  Baker],  who  has  addressed  the 
Senate  for  the  last  two  days,  will  fail  in  his  avowed  purpose  to  "evade" 
the  question.  He  claims  to  be  liberal  and  conservative;  and  I  must  con 
fess  that  he  seems  to  be  the  most  liberal  of  any  gentleman  on  that  side  of 
the  Chamber,  always  excepting  the  noble  and  patriotic  speech  of  the 
Senator  from  Connecticut  [Mr.  Dixon],  and  the  utmost  extent  to  which 
the  Senator  from  Oregon  would  consent  to  go  was  to  devise  a  scheme  by 
which  the  real  question  at  issue  could  be  evaded. 

I  regret  the  determination  to  which  I  apprehend  the  Republican  senators 
have  come,  to  make  no  adjustment,  entertain  no  proposition,  and  listen 
to  no  compromise  of  the  matters  in  controversy. 

I  fear,  from  all  the  indications,  that  they  are  disposed  to  treat  the  matter 
as  a  party  question,  to  be  determined  in  caucus  with  reference  to  its  effects 
upon  the  prospects  of  their  party,  rather  than  upon  the  peace  of  the  coun 
try  and  the  safety  of  the  Union.  I  invoke  their  deliberate  judgment 
whether  it  is  not  a  dangerous  experiment  for  any  political  party  to  demon 
strate  to  the  American  people  that  the  unity  of  their  party  is  dearer  to 
them  than  the  Union  of  these  States.  The  argument  is,  that  the  Chicago 
platform  having  been  ratified  by  the  people  in  a  majority  of  the  States 
must  be  maintained  at  all  hazards,  no  matter  what  the  consequences  to 
the  country.  I  insist  that  they  are  mistaken  in  the  fact  when  they  assert 
that  this  question  was  decided  by  the  American  people  in  the  late  election. 
The  American  people  have  not  decided  that  they  preferred  the  disruption 
of  this  Government,  and  civil  war  with  all  its  horrors  and  miseries,  to 
surrendering  one  iota  of  the  Chicago  platform.  If  you  believe  that  the 
people  are  with  you  on  this  issue,  let  the  question  be  submitted  to  the 
people  on  the  proposition  offered  by  the  Senator  from  Kentucky,  or  mine, 
or  any  other  fair  compromise,  and  I  will  venture  the  prediction  that 
your  own  people  will  ratify  the  proposed  amendments  to  the  Constitu 
tion,  in  order  to  take  this  slavery  question  out  of  Congress,  and  restore 
peace  to  the  country,  and  insure  the  perpetuity  of  the  Union. 

Why  not  give  the  people  a  chance?  It  is  an  important  crisis.  There 
is  now  a  different  issue  presented  from  that  in  the  Presidential  election. 
I  have  no  doubt  that  the  people  of  Massachusetts,  by  an  overwhelming 
majority,  are  in  favor  of  a  prohibition  of  slavery  in  the  Territories  by  an 
act  of  Congress.  An  overwhelming  majority  of  the  same  people  were  in 
favor  of  the  instant  prohibition  of  the  African  slave  trade,  on  moral  and 
religious  grounds,  when  the  Constitution  was  made.  When  they  found 
that  the  Constitution  could  not  be  adopted  and  the  Union  preserved, 
without  surrendering  their  objections  on  the  slavery  question,  they,  in 
the  spirit  of  patriotism  and  Christian  feeling,  preferred  the  lesser  evil  to 
the  greater,  and  ratified  the  Constitution  without  their  favorite  provision 
in  regard  to  slavery.  Give  them  a  chance  to  decide  now  between  the 
ratification  of  these  proposed  amendments  to  the  Constitution  and  the 
consequences  which  your  policy  will  inevitably  produce. 

Why  not  allow  the  people  to  pass  on  these  questions?    All  we  have  to 

18 


274  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

do  is  to  submit  them  to  the  States.  If  the  people  reject  them,  theirs  will 
be  the  responsibility,  and  no  harm  will  have  been  done  by  the  referencel 
If  they  accept  them,  the  country  will  be  safe  and  at  peace.  The  political 
party  which  shall  refuse  to  allow  the  people  to  determine  for  themselves 
at  the  ballot-box  the  issue  between  revolution  and  war  on  the  one  side, 
and  obstinate  adherence  to  party  platform  on  the  other,  will  assume  a 
fearful  responsibility.  A  war  upon  a  political  issue,  waged  by  the  people 
of  eighteen  States  against  the  people  and  domestic  institutions  of  fifteen 
sister  States,  is  a  fearful  and  revolting  thought.  The  South  will  be  a 
unit,  and  desperate,  under  the  belief  that  your  object  in  waging  war  is 
their  destruction,  and  not  the  preservation  of  the  Union;  that  you  medi 
tate  servile  insurrection,  and  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  Southern 
States,  by  fire  and  sword,  in  the  name  and  under  pretext  of  enforcing  the 
laws  and  vindicating  the  authority  of  the  Government.  You  know  that 
such  is  the  prevailing,  and  I  may  say,  unanimous,  opinion  at  the  South; 
and  that  ten  millions  of  people  are  preparing  for  the  terrible  conflict  under 
that  conviction. 

When  there  is  such  an  irrepressible  discontent  pervading  ten  million 
people,  penetrating  the  bosom  of  every  man,  woman,  and  child,  and,  in 
their  estimation,  involving  everything  that  is  valuable  and  dear  on  earth, 
is  it  not  time  to  pause  and  reflect  whether  there  is  not  some  cause,  real  or 
imaginary,  for  apprehension  ?  If  there  be  a  just  cause  for  it,  in  God's  name, 
in  the  name  of  humanity  and  civilization,  let  it  be  removed.  Will  we  not 
be  guilty  in  the  sight  of  Heaven  and  of  posterity,  if  we  do  not  remove  all 
just  cause  before  proceeding  to  extremes?  If,  on  the  contrary,  there  be 
no  real  foundation  for  these  apprehensions;  if  it  be  all  a  mistake,  and 
yet  they,  believing  it  to  be  a  solemn  reality,  are  determined  to  act  on  that 
belief,  is  it  not  equally  our  duty  to  remove  the  misapprehension  ?  Hence 
the  obligation  to  remove  the  causes  of  discontent,  whether  real  or  imag 
inary,  is  alike  imperative  upon  us,  if  we  wish  to  preserve  the  peace  of  the 
country  and  the  Union  of  the  States. 

It  matters  not,  so  far  as  the  peace  of  the  country  and  the  preservation 
of  the  Union  are  concerned,  whether  the  apprehensions  of  the  Southern 
people  are  well  founded  or  not,  so  long  as  they  believe  them,  and  are  de 
termined  to  act  upon  that  belief.  If  war  comes,  it  must  have  an  end  at 
sometime;  and  that  termination,  1  apprehend,  will  be  a  final  separation. 
Whether  the  war  last  one  year,  seven  years,  or  thirty  years,  the  result 
must  be  the  same  —  a  cessation  of  hostilities  when  the  parties  become  ex 
hausted,  and  a  treaty  of  peace  recognizing  the  separate  independence  of 
each  section.  The  history  of  the  world  does  not  furnish  an  instance  where 
war  has  raged  for  a  series  of  years  between  two  classes  of  States,  divided 
by  a  geographical  line  under  the  same  National  Government,  which  has 
ended  in  reconciliation  and  reunion.  Extermination,  subjugation,  or  sepa 
ration,  one  of  the  three,  must  be  the  result  of  war  between  the  Northern 
and  Southern  States.  Surely,  you  do  not  expect  to  exterminate  or  subju 
gate  ten  million  people,  the  entire  population  of  one  section,  as  a  means 
of  preserving  amicable  relations  between  the  two  sections? 


APPENDIX  275' 

I  repeat,  then,  my  solemn  conviction,  that  war  means  disunion,  —  final, 
irrevocable,  eternal  separation.  I  see  no  alternative,  therefore,  but  a  fair 
compromise,  founded  on  the  basis  of  mutual  concessions,  alike  honorable, 
just,  and  beneficial  to  all  parties,  or  civil  war  and  disunion.  Is  there  any 
thing  humiliating  in  a  fair  compromise  of  conflicting  interests,  opinions, 
and  theories,  for  the  sake  of  peace,  Union,  and  safety?  Read  the  debates 
of  the  Federal  convention,  which  formed  our  glorious  Constitution,  and 
you  will  find  noble  examples  worthy  of  imitation ;  instances  where  sages 
and  patriots  were  willing  to  surrender  cherished  theories  and  principles 
of  government,  believed  to  be  essential  to  the  best  form  of  society,  for  the 
sake  of  peace  and  unity. 

It  seems  that  party  platforms,  pride  of  opinion,  personal  consistency, 
or  fear  of  political  martyrdom  are  the  only  obstacles  to  a  satisfactory  ad 
justment.  Have  we  nothing  else  to  live  for  but  political  position?  Have 
we  no  other  inducement,  no  other  incentive  to  our  efforts,  our  toils,  and 
our  sacrifices?  Most  of  us  have  children,  the  objects  of  our  tenderest 
affections  and  deepest  solicitude,  whom  we  hope  to  leave  behind  us  to 
enjoy  the  rewards  of  our  labors  in  a  happy,  prosperous,  and  united  country, 
under  the  best  Government  the  wisdom  of  man  ever  devised  or  the  sun  of 
Heaven  ever  shone  upon.  Can  we  make  no  concessions,  no  sacrifices,  for 
the  sake  of  our  children,  that  they  may  have  a  country  to  live  in  and  a 
Government  to  protect  them  when  party  platforms  and  political  honors 
shall  avail  us  nothing  in  the  day  of  final  reckoning  ? 

In  conclusion,  I  have  only  to  renew  the  assurance  that  I  am  prepared 
to  cooperate  cordially  with  the  friends  of  a  fair,  just,  and  honorable  com 
promise,  in  securing  such  amendments  to  the  Constitution  as  will  expel 
the  slavery  agitation  from  Congress  and  the  arena  of  Federal  politics  for 
ever,  and  restore  peace  to  the  country,  and  preserve  our  liberties  and 
Union  as  the  most  precious  legacy  we  can  transmit  to  our  posterity. 


THE    SO-CALLED    "FREEPORT    DOCTRINE", 

THE  author  of  this  work  long  ago  wrote  an  article  showing  that  the  so- 
called  "Freeport  Doctrine"  was  enunciated  by  Senator  Douglas  long 
before  the  joint  debates  were  entered  upon,  and  was,  in  Mr.  Lincoln's 
presence,  proclaimed  at  Bloomington  by  the  Senator,  six  weeks  before  the 
joint  debate  at  Freeport,  and  repeated  by  him  on  the  next  day  at 
Springfield,  and  that  the  published  statements  in  regard  to  the  matter 
did  the  Senator  great  injustice. 

The  article  appeared  in  the  Chicago  Record-Herald  of  December  22, 
1909,  and  is  reproduced  here  as  follows: 

MR.  EDITOR, — 

At  the  second  of  the  Lincoln  and  Douglas  joint  debates,  which  was  held 
at  Freeport,  Illinois,  on  the  twenty-seventh  of  August,  1858,  Mr.  Lincoln 
propounded  to  Senator  Douglas  four  questions,  the  second  of  which  was 
as  follows: 

"Can  the  people  of  a  United  States  Territory,  in  any  lawful  way,  against 
the  wish  of  any  citizen  of  the  United  States,  exclude  slavery  from  its  limits 
prior  to  the  formation  of  a  State  Constitution?  " 

It  is  not  proposed  in  this  article  to  consider  the  legal  proposition  involved 
in  this  question.  This  was  fully  done  by  the  principals  in  the  great  con 
troversy.  It  is  simply  at  this  time  proposed  to  consider  what  has  seemed 
to  be  throughout  the  country  a  general  misapprehension  in  regard  to  the 
circumstances  of  propounding  this  question,  which  does  great  injustice  to 
Senator  Douglas. 

It  is  understood  that  by  propounding  this  question  Mr.  Lincoln  forced 
the  Senator  into  a  position  which  he  reluctantly  found  himself  obliged  to 
assume,  and  wrung  from  him  a  reply  which  he  was  loath  to  give.  It  is 
further  understood  that  Mr.  Lincoln,  in  propounding  the  question,  could 
only  surmise  what  position  the  Senator  would  take,  but  that  he  believed 
that  the  Senator  would  be  driven  to  answer  the  question  in  the  affirmative 
in  order  to  keep  his  hold  upon  the  people  of  Illinois  and  retain  his  seat  in 
the  Senate,  and  that  for  the  purpose  of  forcing  the  Senator  to  this  position 
Mr.  Lincoln  deliberately  placed  in  jeopardy  his  own  chances  of  election. 

It  is  believed  that  Mr.  Lincoln  was  warned  by  his  political  friends  against 
asking  this  question,  but  that  he  persisted  in  his  determination  to  do  so 
(although  by  so  doing  he  imperilled  his  own  chances  of  being  elected  to 
the  Senate),  with  the  deliberate  purpose  of  forcing  Senator  Douglas,  as 
the  only  hope  of  his  being  reflected  to  the  Senate,  into  a  position  that 
would  defeat  him  for  the  Presidency. 

This  view  of  this  matter  is  supported  by  so  much  authority  and  so 
generally  accepted  as  to  make  it  seem  like  presumption  to  question  its 
correctness. 

Arnold  in  his  "Life  of  Lincoln,"  page  151,  says  that  a  friend  to  whom 


-A 

APPENDIX  277 

the  question  was  shown  said  to  Mr.  Lincoln:  "Douglas  will  adhere  to  his 
doctrine  of  'squatter  sovereignty  '  and  declare  that  a  Territory  may  ex 
clude  slavery." 

"If  he  does  that/'  said  Mr.  Lincoln,  "he  can  never  be  President." 

"But,"  said  the  friend,  "he  may  be  Senator." 

"Perhaps,"  replied  Lincoln,  "but  I  am  after  larger  game  —  the  battle 
of  1860  is  worth  a  hundred  of  this." 

Horace  White,  the  distinguished  editor,  at  the  time  of  the  contest  was 
a  young  newspaper  correspondent,  and  wrote  the  most  graphic  and  inter 
esting  accounts  of  the  campaign.  In  an  article  written  in  1890,  which  may 
be  found  in  Herndon's  life  of  Lincoln,  Mr.  White  tells  of  a  conference  held 
at  Dixon,  just  before  the  Freeport  debate,  between  Mr.  Lincoln  and  a  num 
ber  of  his  friends  from  Chicago,  among  whom  were  Norman  B.  Judd  and 
Dr.  C.  H.  Ray,  the  latter  the  chief  editor  of  The  Tribune.  "I  was  not 
present,"  says  Mr.  White,  "but  Dr.  Ray  told  me  that  all  who  were  there 
counselled  Mr.  Lincoln  not  to  put  that  question  to  Douglas,  because  he 
would  answer  it  in  the  affirmative,  and  thus  probably  secure  his 
reelection. " 

It  was  their  opinion  that  Lincoln  should  argue  strongly  from  the  Dred 
Scott  decision,  which  Douglas  indorsed,  that  the  people  of  the  Territories 
could  not  lawfully  exclude  slavery  prior  to  the  formation  of  a  State  Consti 
tution,  but  that  he  should  not  force  Douglas  to  say  yes  or  no.  They  be 
lieved  that  the  latter  would  let  the  subject  alone  as  much  as  possible,  in 
order  not  to  offend  the  South,  unless  driven  into  a  corner. 

Mr.  Lincoln  replied  that  to  draw  an  affirmative  answer  from  Douglas  on 
this  question  was  exactly  what  he  wanted,  and  that  his  object  was  to  make 
it  impossible  for  Douglas  to  get  the  vote  of  the  Southern  States  in  the  next 
Presidential  election. 

In  the  same  article,  near  its  close,  Mr.  White  says :  "Perhaps  the  Charles 
ton  schism  would  have  taken  place,  even  if  Douglas  had  not  been  driven 
into  a  corner  at  Freeport  and  compelled  to  proclaim  the  doctrine  of  'un 
friendly  legislation/  but  it  is  more  likely  that  the  break  would  have  been 
postponed  a  few  years  longer." 

Nicolay  and  Hay,  in  their  exhaustive  history  of  Abraham  Lincoln, 
make  the  following  statement: 

"There  is  a  tradition  that  on  the  night  preceding  the  Freeport  debate 
Lincoln  was  catching  a  few  hours'  rest  at  a  railroad  centre  named  Mendota, 
to  which  place  the  converging  trains  brought,  after  midnight,  a  number  of 
excited  Republican  leaders  on  their  way  to  attend  the  great  meeting  at 
the  neighboring  town  of  Freeport.  Notwithstanding  the  late  hour,  Mr. 
Lincoln's  bedroom  was  invaded  by  an  improvised  caucus,  and  the  omi 
nous  question  was  once  more  brought  under  consideration. 

"The  whole  drift  of  advice  ran  against  putting  the  interrogatory  to 
Douglas,  but  Lincoln  persisted  in  his  determination  to  force  him  to  an 
swer  it. 

"Finally  his  friends  in  a  chorus  cried:  'If  you  do  you  can  never  be 
Senator.' 


278  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 

'"Gentlemen/  replied  Lincoln,  'I  am  killing  larger  game.  If  Douglas 
answers  he  can  never  be  President,  and  the  battle  of  1860  is  worth  a  hun 
dred  of  this.'" 

These  quotations  from  the  writers  of  the  highest  character  might  be 
supplemented  by  many  similar  quotations  from  others.  The  truth  of 
these  statements,  so  far  as  the  writer  knows,  has  never  heretofore  been 
questioned. 

A  novel  by  Winston  Churchill,  entitled  "The  Crisis,"  which  has  been 
recently  published,  attempts  to  give  an  account  of  the  alleged  interview 
between  Mr.  Lincoln  and  his  friends  on  the  eve  of  the  Freeport  debate. 

In  this  account  the  interview  is  assumed  to  have  taken  place  on  a  rail 
way  train,  and  the  parties,  as  stated,  were  Mr.  Lincoln,  Joseph  Medill, 
Norman  B.  Judd,  and  Mr.  Hill  (the  last  meaning  probably  Robert  R.  Hitt), 
and  Stephen  Brice,  the  hero  of  the  story. 

The  writer  tells  of  Mr.  Lincoln  reading  to  the  gentlemen  the  four  ques 
tions  he  intended  to  propound  at  Freeport,  and  proceeds  with  his  account 
of  the  interview  as  follows: 

'"We  don't  care  about  any  of  the  others,'  answered  Mr.  Medill,  'but  I 
tell  you  this,  if  you  ask  that  second  one  you  will  never  see  the  United  States 
Senate.' 

"'And  the  Republican  party  of  this  State  will  have  a  blow  from  which 
it  cannot  recover,'  added  Mr.  Judd,  chairman  of  the  committee. 

"Mr.  Lincoln  did  not  appear  to  hear  them.  His  eyes  were  far  away 
over  the  wet  prairie. 

"Stephen  held  his  breath,  but  neither  he  nor  Medill  nor  Judd  nor 
Hill  guessed  at  the  pregnancy  of  that  moment.  How  were  they  to  know 
that  the  fate  of  the  United  States  of  America  was  concealed  in  that  ques 
tion  —  was  to  be  decided  that  day  on  a  rough  wooden  platform  at  Free- 
port,  Illinois?" 

After  some  further  rhapsodies  of  the  author  of  this  story,  he  makes 
''Abe  and  Joe  and  Judd  "  continue  the  conversation  in  a  similar  strain, 
and  Mr.  Lincoln  reads  to  them  the  question  under  consideration : 

f'Can  the  people  of  a  United  States  Territory,  in  any  lawful  way,  against 
the  wish  of  any  citizen  of  the  United  States,  exclude  slavery  from  its  limits 
prior  to  the  formation  of  a  State  Constitution?'" 

This  evoked,  according  to  the  author  of  "The  Crisis,"  more  warnings  and 
protests  from  "Joe  and  Judd,"  to  which  Mr.  Lincoln  offered  a  reply,  in  the 
course  of  which  he  is  made  to  say : 

'"I  '11  tell  you  why  I  'm  in  this  campaign  —  to  catch  Douglas  now,  and 
keep  him  out  of  the  White  House  in  1860;  to  save  this  country  of  ours. 
Joe,  she  'a  sick/ 

1" Suppose  he  answers  yes  —  that  slavery  can  be  excluded'?  questioned 
Mr.  Judd. 

f'Then/  said  Mr.  Lincoln,  'then  Douglas  loses  the  vote  of  the  great 
slaveholders,  the  vote  of  the  solid  South,  that  he  has  been  fostering  ever 
since  he  has  had  the  itch  to  be  President.  Without  the  solid  South,  the 
little  giant  will  never  live  in  the  White  House.  And  unless  I  'm  mightily 


APPENDIX  279 

mistaken  Steve  Douglas  has  had  his  eye  as  far  ahead  as  1860  for  some 
time.'" 

Not  satisfied  with  all  this  the  author  in  commenting  upon  the  question 
and  answer  as  they  were  heard  at  Freeport,  exclaims  : 

"What  man  amongst  those  who  heard  and  stirred  might  say  that  these 
minutes,  even  now  lasting  into  eternity,  held  the  crisis  of  a  nation  that  is 
the  hope  of  the  world  ?  Not  you,  Judge  Douglas,  who  sits  there  smiling. 
Consternation  is  a  stranger  in  your  heart  —  but  answer  that  question  if 
you  can.  Yes,  your  nimble  wit  has  helped  you  out  of  many  a  tight  corner. 
You  do  not  feel  the  noose  —  as  yet.  Can  you  not  guess  that  your  reply 
will  make  or  mar  the  fortunes  of  your  country?" 

With  all  that  has  been  quoted  and  much  more,  for  which  we  have  not 
space,  giving  the  same  understanding  of  the  matter  under  consideration, 
it  may,  as  has  been  said,  seem  presumptuous  to  question  the  correctness 
of  views  so  generally  accepted.  It  is  important,  however,  that  the  truth 
be  known.  This  is  due  to  the  memory  of  Senator  Douglas,  to  that  of  Mr. 
Lincoln,  and  of  all  the  others  whose  names  have  been  mentioned,  and,  if 
there  has  been  a  mistake,  it  ought  to  be  corrected.  We  are  convinced 
that  there  has  been  a  mistake  —  that  injustice  has  been  done,  and  there 
fore  we  ask  that  the  matter  be  reconsidered. 

The  answer  of  Senator  Douglas  at  Freeport  to  the  question  under  con 
sideration  was,  after  repeating  it,  as  follows : 

"I  answer  emphatically,  as  Mr.  Lincoln  has  heard  me  answer  a  hundred 
times  from  every  stump  in  Illinois,  that,  in  my  opinion,  a  Territory  can, 
by  lawful  means,  exclude  slavery  from  their  limits  prior  to  the  formation 
of  a  State  Constitution.  Mr.  Lincoln  knew  that  I  had  answered  that  ques 
tion  over  and  over  again.  He  heard  me  argue  the  Nebraska  bill  on  that 
issue  in  1854,  in  1855,  in  1856,  and  he  has  no  excuse  for  pretending  to  be 
in  doubt  as  to  my  position  on  that  question.  It  matters  not  what  the 
Supreme  Court  may  hereafter  decide,  as  to  the  abstract  question  whether 
slavery  may  or  may  not  go  into  a  Territory  under  the  Constitution,  the 
people  have  the  lawful  means  to  introduce  it  or  exclude  it  as  they  please, 
for  the  reason  that  slavery  cannot  exist  a  day  or  an  hour  anywhere  unless 
it  is  supported  by  local  police  regulations. 

f  Those  police  regulations  can  only  be  established  by  the  local  Legislature, 
and  if  the  people  are  opposed  to  slavery  they  will  elect  members  to  that 
body  who  will,  by  unfriendly  legislation,  effectually  prevent  the  introduc 
tion  of  it  in  their  midst.  If,  on  the  contrary,  they  are  for  it,  then  legis 
lation  will  favor  its  extension.  Hence,  no  matter  what  the  decision  of  the 
Supreme  Court  may  be  upon  that  abstract  question,  still  the  right  of  the 
people  to  make  a  slave  Territory  or  a  free  Territory  is  perfect  and  com 
plete  under  the  Nebraska  bill." 

Thus  we  see  that  the  Senator  answered,  as  it  is  claimed  was  predicted  by 
Mr.  Lincoln's  friends,  at  the  alleged  conferences  held  at  Mendota  and  Dixon, 
and  on  a  flying  railway  train. 

It  will  be  observed  that  in  this  reply  the  Senator  says : 

"I  answer  emphatically,  as  Mr.  Lincoln  has  heard  me  a  hundred  times 


280  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS 

from  every  stump  in  Illinois.  .  .  .  He  heard  me  argue  the  Nebraska  bill  on 
that  principle  all  over  the  State  in  1854,  in  1855,  in  1856,"  etc. 

This  of  itself  should  have  satisfied  every  one  that  ever  knew  Senator 
Douglas  that  in  replying  to  the  question  he  had  enunciated  no  new  doctrine, 
but  the  same  he  had  proclaimed  many  times  before.  Every  one  who  knew 
Senator  Douglas  knew  that  he  was  incapable  of  making  that  statement 
unless  it  had  been  substantially  true.  In  the  three  years  that  had  elapsed 
he  had  probably  enunciated  that  doctrine  more  than  a  hundred  times  — 
certainly  many  times. 

Fortunately  we  are  not  left  to  rely  upon  the  Senator's  unsupported 
statement  in  regard  to  this  matter.  We  have  —  I  will  not  say  the  evidence 
—  we  have  the  proof  that  in  the  same  campaign,  six  weeks  before  the  ques 
tion  was  asked  him  at  Freeport,  Senator  Douglas,  in  the  presence  of  Mr. 
Lincoln  and  a  large  audience,  proclaimed  the  same  doctrine  enunciated  at 
Freeport,  and  we  also  have  the  proof  that  on  the  following  day  before  an 
other  audience  he  again  proclaimed  the  same  doctrine. 

That  campaign  of  1858  between  Lincoln  and  Douglas  was  opened  by 
Mr.  Lincoln  with  his  prophetic  address  before  the  Illinois  State  Republican 
convention  on  June  17,  in  which,  after  exclaiming  that  "a,  house  divided 
against  itself  cannot  stand,"  he  declared:  "This  Government  cannot  en 
dure  permanently  half  slave  and  half  free,"  etc. 

Upon  his  coming  home  from  Washington  some  time  thereafter,  Senator 
Douglas  was,  on  July  9,  given  a  public  reception  at  Chicago,  when  he  re 
plied  to  Mr.  Lincoln's  Springfield  address.  Mr.  Lincoln  was  present  and 
heard  this  Chicago  address,  and  on  the  next  evening,  the  tenth,  he  made 
a  speech  in  Chicago  replying  to  the  Senator. 

On  Friday,  July  16,  Senator  Douglas  spoke  at  Bloomington,  and  Mr. 
Lincoln  was  present.  On  the  next  day,  Saturday  the  seventeenth,  Senator 
Douglas  spoke  at  Springfield  in  the  afternoon.  Mr.  Lincoln  was  not  present, 
but  he  himself  spoke  at  the  same  place  in  the  evening.  (That  Springfield 
speech,  in  which  the  Senator  used  almost  the  precise  language  upon  this 
matter  as  at  Bloomington,  was  published  in  full  in  The  Illinois  State  Reg 
ister  on  Monday,  the  nineteenth.  See  files  of  The  Illinois  State  Register  in 
the  State  library  at  Springfield.) 

Senator  Douglas's  speech  at  Bloomington,  it  will  be  observed,  was  made 
on  the  sixteenth  of  July.  The  Freeport  debate  was  held  on  the  twenty- 
seventh  of  August,  six  weeks  later.  Not  being  limited  in  time  at  Bloom 
ington  and  Springfield  as  in  the  joint  debates,  the  Senator  could  elaborate 
his  views  fully. 

Let  us  see  what  Senator  Douglas  said  upon  the  question  under  considera 
tion  six  weeks  before  it  was  propounded  to  him  at  Freeport  in  the  presence 
of  Mr.  Lincoln  and  a  large  audience  at  Bloomington,  and  which  he  repeated 
on  the  next  day  at  Springfield.  This  is  what  he  said : 

"Mr.  Lincoln  is  alarmed  for  fear  that  under  the  Dred  Scott  decision 
slavery  will  go  into  all  the  Territories  of  the  United  States.  All  I  have  to 
say  is  that,  with  or  without  that  decision,  slavery  will  go  just  where  the 
people  want  it,  and  not  one  inch  further.  You  have  had  experience  upon 


APPENDIX  281 

that  subject  in  the  case  of  Kansas.  You  have  been  told  by  the  Republican 
party  that  from  1854,  when  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  passed,  down  to 
last  winter,  that  slavery  was  sustained  and  supported  in  Kansas  by  the 
laws  of  what  they  call  a  '  bogus '  Legislature.  And  how  many  slaves  were 
there  in  the  Territory  at  the  end  of  last  winter?  Not  as  many  at  the  end 
of  that  period  as  there  were  on  the  day  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  passed. 
There  was  quite  a  number  of  slaves  in  Kansas,  taken  there  under  the 
Missouri  Compromise,  and  in  spite  of  it,  before  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill 
passed,  and  now  it  is  asserted  that  there  are  not  as  many  there  as  there 
were  before  the  passage  of  the  bill,  notwithstanding  that  they  had  local 
laws  sustaining  and  encouraging  it,  enacted,  as  the  Republicans  say,  by 
a  'bogus'  Legislature,  imposed  upon  Kansas  by  an  invasion  from  Missouri. 
"Why  has  not  slavery  obtained  a  foothold  in  Kansas  under  these  cir 
cumstances?  Simply  because  there  was  a  majority  of  her  people  opposed 
to  slavery,  and  every  slaveholder  knew  that  if  he  took  his  slaves  there 
the  moment  that  majority  got  possession  of  the  ballot  boxes,  and  a  fair 
election  was  held,  that  moment  slavery  would  be  abolished  and  he 
would  lose  them.  For  that  reason,  such  owners  as  took  their  slaves  there 
brought  them  back  to  Missouri,  fearing  that  if  they  remained  they  would 
be  emancipated. 

"Thus  you  see  that  under  the  principle  of  popular  sovereignty,  slavery 
has  been  kept  out  of  Kansas,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  for  the  first 
three  years  they  had  a  legislature  in  that  Territory  favorable  to  it. 

"I  tell  you,  my  friends,  it  is  impossible  under  our  institutions  to  force 
slavery  on  an  unwilling  people.  If  this  principle  of  popular  sovereignty 
asserted  in  the  Nebraska  bill  be  fairly  carried  out,  by  letting  the  people 
decide  the  question  for  themselves,  by  a  fair  vote,  at  a  fair  election,  and 
with  honest  returns,  slavery  will  never  exist  one  day,  or  one  hour,  in  any 
Territory  against  the  unfriendly  legislation  of  an  unfriendly  people. 

"I  care  not  how  the  Dred  Scott  decision  may  have  settled  the  abstract 
question  so  far  as  the  practical  result  is  concerned,  for,  to  use  the  language 
of  an  eminent  Southern  senator,  on  this  very  question  : 

" '  I  do  not  care  a  fig  which  way  the  decision  shall  be,  but  it  is  of  no  par 
ticular  consequence ;  slavery  cannot  exist  a  day  or  an  hour,  in  any  Terri 
tory  or  State,  unless  it  has  affirmative  laws,  sustaining  and  supporting  it, 
furnishing  police  regulations  and  remedies;  and  an  omission  to  furnish 
them  would  be  as  fatal  as  a  constitutional  prohibition.  Without  affirma 
tive  legislation  in  its  favor  slavery  could  not  exist  any  longer  than  a 
new-born  infant  could  survive  under  the  heat  of  the  sun,  on  a  barren 
rock,  without  protection.  It  would  wilt  and  die  for  want  of  support.' 

"Hence,"  continued  Senator  Douglas,  "if  the  people  of  a  Territory  want 
slavery  they  will  encourage  it  by  passing  affirmatory  laws  and  the  neces 
sary  police  regulations,  patrol  laws,  and  slave  code ;  if  they  do  not  want 
it,  they  will  withhold  that  legislation,  and  by  withholding  it  slavery  is  as 
dead  as  if  it  was  prohibited  by  a  constitutional  prohibition,  especially  if 
in  addition  their  legislation  is  unfriendly,  as  it  would  be  if  they  were  op 
posed  to  it. 


282  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 

"They  could  pass  such  local  laws  and  police  regulations  as  would  drive 
slavery  out  in  one  day,  or  one  hour,  if  they  were  opposed  to  it,  and  there 
fore,  so  far  as  the  question  of  slavery  in  the  Territories  is  concerned,  so 
far  as  the  principle  of  popular  sovereignty  is  concerned,  in  its  practical 
operation,  it  matters  not  how  the  Dred  Scott  case  may  be  decided  with 
reference  to  the  Territories.  My  own  opinion  on  that  law  point  is  well 
known.  It  is  shown  by  my  votes  and  speeches  in  Congress. 

"But,  be  it  as  it  may,  the  question  is  an  abstract  question,  inviting  no 
practical  results,  and  whether  slavery  shall  exist  or  shall  not  exist  in  any 
State  or  Territory  will  depend  upon  whether  the  people  are  for  or  against 
it,  and  whichever  way  they  shall  decide  it  in  any  Territory  or  in  any 
State  will  be  entirely  satisfactory  to  me." 

[See  "Political  Debates  and  Speeches  of  Lincoln  and  Douglas,"  Follett, 
Foster  &  Co.,  Columbus,  Ohio,  1860,  page  34,  which  presents  Mr.  Lincoln's 
speeches  as  they  appeared  in  The  Chicago  Tribune  and  Mr.  Douglas's  as 
they  appeared  in  The  Chicago  Times.] 

It  must  be  apparent  to  every  candid  person  who  has  before  him  these 
words  spoken  by  Senator  Douglas  at  Bloomington  and  Springfield  that 
there  has  been  some  mistake  about  Senator  Douglas  having  been  at  Free- 
port,  six  weeks  afterward,  "forced"  or  "driven"  into  a  corner  and  "com 
pelled  to  proclaim  the  doctrine  of  'unfriendly  legislation.'" 

With  the  speeches  of  Senator  Douglas  at  Bloomington  and  Springfield 
before  us  is  it  not  apparent  to  every  candid  mind  that  great  and  cruel  in 
justice  has  been  done  to  Senator  Douglas? 

In  the  light  of  those  speeches  at  Bloomington  and  at  Springfield  is  it  not 
likewise  apparent  that  a  wrong  has  been  also  inflicted  upon  Mr.  Lincoln? 
After  having  heard  that  Bloomington  speech  and  read  it  in  the  newspapers 
where  it  was  published,  how  could  Mr.  Lincoln,  honest  man  that  he  was, 
have  said  what  has  been  attributed  to  him  in  those  alleged  conferences, 
and  how  could  he  have  silently  listened  to  what  has  been  attributed  to 
others  who  are  alleged  to  have  taken  part  in  the  discussion?  Does  it  not 
convict  him  of  being  guilty  of  disingenuousness,  or  of  somethng  worse, 
which  every  one  who  knew  Mr.  Lincoln  knows  was  impossible?  To  say 
that  Mr.  Lincoln  was  not  perfectly  familiar  with  and  that  he  did  not  un 
derstand  and  had  not  weighed  the  effect  of  every  sentence  and  line  of 
Senator  Douglas's  Bloomington  and  Springfield  speeches,  is  to  assume  that 
he  was  entirely  unequal  to  the  great  contest  in  which  he  was  engaged. 

To  say  that  Senator  Douglas  could  have  been  so  easily  "driven  into  a 
corner  and  compelled  to  proclaim  the  doctrine  of  '  unfriendly  legislation ' " 
is  to  assume  that  the  foremost  statesman  and  the  ablest  debater  in  Con 
gress  was  a  person  of  very  ordinary  ability.  It  is  to  detract  from  the  high 
estimation  in  which  are  held  both  of  the  mighty  contestants  and  to  rob 
them  of  the  laurels  they  so  richly  earned. 

With  Senator  Douglas's  Bloomington  and  Springfield  speeches  before 
us,  to  say  that  such  a  conference  as  is  alleged,  was  held  on  the  day  before 
the  Freeport  debate,  is  a  reflection  upon  Joseph  Medill,  C.  A.  Ray,  Norman 
B.  Judd,  Robert  R.  Hitt  and  others  —  the  ablest  men  in  Illinois  of  that 


APPENDIX  283 

da/y>  —  who  were  watching  with  intense  interest  and  anxiety  every  move  of 
Senator  Douglas.  That  some  of  them,  years  after  the  death  of  both  Lin 
coln  and  Douglas,  thought  they  could  recall  such  a  conference  simply 
shows  a  defective  memory  in  having  forgotten  the  speeches  at  Bloom- 
ington  and  Springfield. 

But  why,  it  may  be  asked,  if  not  for  the  purpose  of  driving  the  Senator 
into  a  corner  and  of  wringing  from  him  an  unwilling  answer,  did  Mr.  Lin 
coln  propound  the  second  interrogatory? 

The  same  question  might  be  asked  in  regard  to  either  of  the  three  other 
interrogatories.  Why  did  Mr.  Lincoln  propound  the  first,  the  third,  or 
the  fourth?  A  more  relevant  question  would  be,  how  did  Mr.  Lincoln 
with  such  consummate  wisdom  formulate  the  four  interrogatories?  If 
one  will  study  these  together  he  will  find  that,  with  the  sagacity  of  a  philos 
opher  and  the  instinct  of  the  keen  and  discriminating  lawyer  he  was,  Mr. 
Lincoln  made  and  arranged  those  interrogatories,  following  one  another 
in  logical  sequence,  each  relating  directly  to  and  necessary  to  the  other, 
in  order  to  attain  the  result  for  which  they  were  intended,  which  was  to 
make  up  and  so  plainly  define  the  issues  of  the  campaign  that  they  would 
be  clear  to  everybody.  With  this  end  in  view,  neither  interrogatory  could 
be  omitted.  It  was  in  the  quality  of  mind  that  enabled  him  to  marshal, 
combine  and  make  the  most  of  interrogatories,  syllogisms,  metaphors, 
anecdotes,  and,  indeed,  every  kind  and  form  of  reasoning  and  illustration, 
that  Mr.  Lincoln  excelled  Senator  Douglas.  This  is  apparent  throughout 
all  the  debates,  from  the  first  meeting  at  Ottawa  to  the  last  one  at  Alton. 

But  all  this  is  irrelevant  to  the  question  under  consideration.  If  it  is 
true  that  Senator  Douglas  had  in  as  public  a  manner,  before  thousands 
of  people,  repeatedly,  long  before  the  Freeport  debate,  declared  himself  as 
fully  and  freely  and  explicitly  upon  the  question  under  consideration,  as 
he  did  at  Freeport,  and  that  Mr.  Lincoln  had  heard  that  declaration  as  it 
fell  from  the  lips  of  the  Senator,  and  that  all  persons  interested  in  the  con 
test  must  have  known  his  position,  it  is  cruel  and  outrageous  to  say  that 
he  "was  driven  into  a  corner  at  Freeport  and  compelled  to  proclaim  the 
doctrine  of  '  unfriendly  legislation  ' "  —  that  he  was  forced  to  say  "yes"  or 
"no"  —  that  he  had  been  driven  to  put  his  head  into  a  "noose"  and  could 
only  hope  to  extricate  himself  through  his  "nimble  wit,"  etc. 

There  seems  to  be  a  disposition  in  some  quarters  to  belittle  Senator 
Douglas.  There  are  those  who  seem  to  think  that  by  so  doing  they  exalt 
Mr.  Lincoln.  By  so  doing  they  are  really  depreciating  Mr.  Lincoln. 

It  was  because  Mr.  Lincoln  manfully  met  and,  according  to  the  judg 
ment  of  the  American  people,  overcame  the  mightiest  debater  and  orator 
in  public  life,  the  majesty  of  whose  forensic  power  moved  and  controlled 
the  United  States  Senate  and  vast  assemblages  of  people  and  great  repre 
sentative  conventions,  and  dictated  the  policy  of  the  nation;  it  was 
because  Mr.  Lincoln  bravely  met  and  successfully  coped  with  such  a 
personage,  that  he  was  held  in  such  estimation  as  to  be  accorded  the 
highest  honors  the  people  could  bestow. 

The  character  of  Abraham  Lincoln  was  so  exalted  that  after  we  have 


284  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 

freely  and  generously  given  the  full  meed  of  glory  they  earned  to  all  those 
with  whom  he  came  in  contact  or  was  associated,  whether  adversaries  with 
whom  he  contended  or  statesmen  he  called  into  his  cabinet,  he  still  majes 
tically  towers  above  them  all.  The  whole  civilized  world  enshrines  him 
among  the  immortals.  His  glory  can  neither  be  illumined  nor  dimmed  by 
anything  we  may  put  forth  or  withhold.  As  with  devotion  akin  to  worship 
we  recall  his  resplendent  personality,  sublime,  benignant,  considerate,  let 
us  not  be  unmindful  of  what  is  due  to  those  with  whom  he  lived  and  moved 
and  acted.  There  was  no  envy,  nor  hatred,  nor  malice  in  his  nature.  He 
was  always  just.  We  can  in  no  better  way  manifest  our  high  apprecia 
tion  of  his  resplendent  virtues  than  by  doing  justice  to  his  illustrious 
adversary. 


INDEX 


INDEX 


Abolition,  45 
Adams,  John,  14 

,  John  Quincy,  14-19,  22 

Alabama,  secession  of,  114 

troops,  115 

Alaska,  20,  28 

Alleghany    Mountains    as    western 

boundary,  34 
Alton  debate,  80 
American  Fur  Company,  20 
Arizona,  acquisition  of,   16,  28,  73, 

131 ;  included  in  New  Mexico,  109 
Arkansas  troops,  115 
Ashburton  Treaty,  21 
Asia,  foreign  powers  in,  36 
Auction,  Douglas  clerk  of,  1 


Baltimore,     Charleston    convention 

adjourned  to,  96,  97,  131 
,    Constitutional    Union    party 

convention  at,  98 
Democratic  convention  (1852). 

94 
Bangor   [Maine]    Union,    The,    118, 

139 

Barnett,  Squire,  47 
Barrancas,  Fort,  115 
Baton  Rouge  Arsenal,  115 
Bell,  John,  98,  104 
Bloomington  speech,  79,  81,  82,  91 
Brandon,  Vt.,  birthplace  of  Doug 
las,  3 
Breckenridge,  John  C.,  97,  98,  101, 

104 

Breese,  Judge  Sidney,  23 
Brougham,  Speeches  of,  87 
Browning,  Orville  H.,  43 
Buchanan's   administration,    60-64, 

67,  88,  90,  91,  94,  100,  101,  113, 

126 
Bulwer,  Sir  Henry,  British  Minister, 

36 
Burke,  speeches  of,  87 


Cabinet-making,  Douglas's  trade,  3 

Calhoun,  John  C.,  74,  77 

California,  acquisition  of,  16,  28,  35, 
73,  131;  western  coast  to,  claimed 
by  Great  Britain,  20;  "Central 
America  on  road  to,"  36;  in 
Compromise  Measures  of  1850, 
39;  act  organizing,  91 

Campaign  of  1840,  10,  11 

Canal,  isthmian,  projects,  30-33 

Canandaigua,  N.  Y.,  Douglas  in,  3 

Candidacy,  direct,  9 

Central  America,  Clayton-Bulwer 
Treaty  concerning,  29,  31,  32,  35, 
36 

Charleston  debate,  80 

Democratic  convention  (1860). 

94-97,  131 

Chicago,  39,  44,  46,  47,  52,  79,  98, 
136,  141,  143 

Chicago  Times,  The,  139 

Chicago,  University  of,  50-52 

Civil  War,  legal  precedent  in  the,  13; 
interrupted  building  of  Pacific 
railway,  25;  division  as  to  Doug 
las  a  step  toward,  90,  95;  South 
ern  sentiment  since  the,  95; 
Douglas's  forecast  of  the,  105; 
outbreak  of  the,  115,  134 

Clay,  Henry,  38,  53,  74,  77,  99 

Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty,  28,  29,  31- 
33,  35,  36,  73,  131;  speech  on, 
169-178 

Coahuila,  one  of  Spanish  provinces 
of  Mexico,  18 

Columbia,  District  of,  39,  106 

Compromise  between  North  and 
South,  efforts  to  effect  a,  105-112, 
121,  134;  speech  on,  252-275 

Compromise  measures  of  1820  (Mis 
souri  Compromise),  54,  78 
Compromise  measures  of  1850,  38, 

39,  73,  78 
Confederacy,  the,  114-116,  121,  128, 

134,  135,  138,  140 
Congress,  Douglas  in,  2,  12,  15,  24, 


288 


INDEX 


25,  27,  31,  39,  43,  53,  57,  60,  73, 
74,  91,  102;  John  Quincy  Adams 
in,  14,  15;  division  of,  on  Oregon 
boundary  question,  21;  Illinois 
Central  Railway  measure  in,  23, 
24;  question  of  extension  of  slave 
territory  in,  54,  55;  agitation 
over  slavery  question  in,  56 

Connecticut  in  Douglas  campaign, 
93 

Constitutional  Union  party,  98 

Coon-skin  emblems  in  campaign  of 
1840,  10,  11 

"Copperheads,"  141 

Corwin,  Mr.,  of  Ohio,  108 

"Cotton  States,"  114,  127 

Crittenden,  John  J.,  and  Crittenden 
amendment,  106,  107,  118 

Cuba,  34,  35,  113 

Cullom,  Hon.  Shelby  M.,  135 

Cutts,  Adele  (Mrs.  Stephen  A. 
Douglas),  49 

James  Madison,  49 


Davis,  Jefferson,  96,  114,  115,  121, 
127 

Debates  between  Lincoln  and  Doug 
las,  2,  44-46,  51,  76,  80-89,  99, 
100 

Democracy,  Douglas  the  embodi 
ment  of,  7 

Democratic  party,  4,  7,  10,  11,  22, 
40,  57,  96,  98,  116,  118,  128,  131, 
132,  140 

politicians,  excessive  convivi 
ality  among,  46 

Denver,  Governor,  67 

Detroit  Free  Press,  The,  118,  139 

Dickinson,  Daniel  S.,  96 

Dixon,  Senator  Archibald,  56 

Douglas,  Dr.,  father  of  Stephen  A. 
Douglas,  3 

,  Mrs.,  mother  of  Stephen  A. 

Douglas,  3 

,  Hon.  Robert  M.,  24,  49,  58, 

59 

,  Stephen  A.,  personal  appear 
ance  of,  1,  7,  41,  42;  financial 
condition  of,  in  1833,  1,  8;  arrival 
of,  in  Winchester,  111.,  1,  3,  5,  8, 
12,  74,  92;  first  money  earned 
by,  1;  school  opened  by,  1,  2,  6, 
7;  his  study  of  law,  2,  7;  his 
progress  in  first  ten  years,  2; 
offices  held  by,  2,  10,  24,  74;  in 


Congress,  2,  12,  15,  24,  25,  27, 
31,  39,  43,  53,  57,  60,  73,  74,  91, 
102;  his  debates  with  Lincoln, 
2,  44-46,  51,  76,  80-89,  99,  100; 
death  of,  2,  143;  birth,  educa 
tion,  and  apprenticeship  of,  3; 
at  Canandaigua,  N.  Y.,  3;  his 
candidacy  for  President,  4,  40,  53, 
57,  90-104, 124,  129-131, 133, 140; 
as  statesman,  4,  74;  Jackson 
ideal  hero  of,  and  his  champion 
ship  of  Jackson's  cause,  5-7,  9, 
10,  12,  73,  131;  law  practice  of, 
7;  first  political  speech  of,  7,  8; 
best  informed  and  ablest  Demo 
crat  in  Illinois,  7 ;  known  through 
out  State,  7,  8,  10,  11;  described 
by  Rev.  Wm.  H.  Milburn,  8; 
canvassed  Illinois  for  Van  Buren, 
9-11;  no  political  scandals  in 
career  of,  10;  called  "Little 
Giant,"  11,  41,  42;  debates  in 
defence  of  Gen.  Jackson,  12,  13; 
his  interpretation  of  the  law  es 
tablished  precedent,  13;  impres 
sion  produced  upon  John  Quincy 
Adams  by,  14-16;  his  manner  of 
public  speaking,  15,  85;  his 
triumph  over  Mr.  Adams,  15-19; 
supporter  of  President  Polk  and 
advocate  of  Mexican  War,  16-19, 
73,  131;  his  position  on  Oregon 
boundary  question,  21,  22,  73, 
131 ;  under  leadership  of  J.  Q. 
Adams,  22;  his  part  in  Illinois 
Central  Railway  legislation,  23, 
24,  73;  his  eldest  son,  24,  58; 
his  attitude  toward  proposed 
Pacific  railway,  25,  26,  73 ;  toward 
inland  waterway  legislation,  27, 
73;  toward  foreign  acquisition 
and  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty,  28- 
37,  73,  131;  John  Hay  a  student 
and  disciple  of,  33;  nis  relation 
with  Compromise  Measures  of 
1850,  38,  39,  45,  54-58,  73,  75 
(see  "in  opposition  to  Lecompton 
Constitution");  his  Chicago 
speech  (Oct.  23,  1850),  39;  his 
influence  in  Illinois,  39,  61;  his 
debates  with  Whigs,  39;  leader 
of  Democratic  party,  40,  63;  a 
"good  mixer,"  42;  character 
istics  of,  42-47;  as  a  presiding 
judge,  42;  his  voice,  43,  85,  86; 
loyal  to  friends,  43;  dignity  of, 
43,  44,  85;  in  campaign  against 
O.  H,  Browning;  43;  contrasted 


INDEX 


289 


with  Lincoln,  44,  46,  86;  his  first 
Chicago  speech  in  campaign 
against  Lincoln,  44,  79;  his  de 
bate  with  anti-slavery  orator, 
45 ;  charged  with  drinking  habits, 
46;  an  incessant  smoker,  46;  his 
increasing  embonpoint,  46;  his 
habits  of  dress,  46;  his  readiness 
in  emergency,  46,  47 ;  considerate 
toward  young  men,  47;  family 
of,  49,  58,  59 ;  his  connection  with 
University  of  Chicago,  50-52; 
with  Chicago,  52;  tomb  of,  52; 
popularity  of,  53,  56,  57,  61,  63; 
mistake  of,  53-57;  his  position 
on  slavery,  58-61,  75;  com 
mitted  to  the  South,  58,  60,  61; 
in  opposition  to  Lecompton  Con 
stitution,  61-70,  72,  73,  75,  77, 
79,  90,  98,  131;  his  break  with 
the  administration,  62,  63,  70- 
72,  88,  89,  91,  100,  101 ;  his  great 
speech  in  Senate,  1858,  65-68; 
not  recreant  to  popular  sov 
ereignty  principles  in  Nebraska 
bill,  68,  77;  his  campaign  for 
second  term  in  Senate,  70,  72, 
75,  77,  79,  88;  his  attitude  on 
presidential  dictation,  70-72 ; 
knew  Constitution  by  heart,  74; 
his  utterances  widely  read,  79, 
138,  139;  not  a  man  to  bo  driven 
into  a  corner,  82;  his  speech  at 
Winchester,  111.,  92;  the  fore 
most  American,  102;  his  efforts 
to  save  the  Union,  105-109,  112, 
113,  121,  140,  141;  at  Lincoln's 
inaugural,  123,  124;  sentiment 
toward,  after  Lincoln's  inaugural, 
127;  his  conference  with  Lincoln, 
129,  130,  134;  his  loyal  support 
of  Lincoln,  130,  132-134;  his 
address  before  Illinois  Legisla 
ture,  135,  136;  his  address  at 
Chicago,  136-138,  141,  142;  his 
last  words,  143 

,  Stephen  A.,  Jr.,  49 

Draper,  John  W.,  78 

Dred  Scott  decision,.  44,  81,  85,  87, 
90 

E 

Egypt  (southern  Illinois),  88,  133 
Emerson,  quoted,  78 
Everett,  speeches  of,  87 
Expansion,  Douglas's  views  on,  34- 
37,  73 


Father  of  Stephen  A.  Douglas,  3 

"Fifty-four  forty  or  fight,"  watch 
word  of  Democratic  party,  20, 
22,  28,  73,  131 

Fine  imposed  by  Federal  Judge  Hall 
on  Gen.  Jackson,  5,  6,  12 

Florida,  acquisition  of,  34,  35;  se 
cession  of,  114 

Floyd,  Mr.,  Secretary  of  War  under 
Buchanan,  115,  116 

Foreign  policy  of  Douglas,  28,  29, 
31,  32,  73;  speech  on,  169-178 

Fox,  speeches  of,  87 

France  in  transfer  of  Louisiana,  18 

Franklin,  Benjamin,  136 

Frederick  the  Great,  22 

Freeport  debate,  80,  82,  88,  91 

"Freeport  Doctrine,"  the  so-called, 
276-284 

Free  Soil  party,  68 

Fugitive  Slave  Law,  39,  66,  107,  117, 
125,  126,  136,  137 


Galesburg,  debate  at,  44,  80;  Doug 
las's  friends  at,  47 

Georgia,  Gulf  of,  21 

,  secession  of,  112,  114 

Goethe,  quoted,  30,  32 

"Governor  of  Illinois,"  47,  48 

Grant,  Ulysses  S.,  57 

Great  Britain,  its  claims  in  Oregon 
boundary  question,  20-22,  28; 
value  placed  upon  Oregon  coun 
try  by,  21;  understood  situation 
between  North  and  South,  22; 
Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty  with,  28, 
29,  32,  33,  35,  36;  Confederacy 
expected  to  be  recognized  by,  114 

"Great  Pacificator"  (Henry  Clay), 
38 

Greeley,  Horace,  72,  116 

Guthrie,  James,  96 

H 

Hall,  Judge,  of  Federal  Court,  New 

Orleans,  5,  12 

Hamilton,  Alexander,  77,  136 
Hard  cider  campaign,  10,  11 
Hardin,  Col.  John  J.,  8 
Harrison,  William  Henry,  11 
Harvard,  J.  Q.  Adams  a  professor  at. 

14 

Hay,  John,  32,  33 
Hay-Pauncefote  Treaty,  33 


19 


290 


INDEX 


Hermitage,     the,     Gen.     Jackson's 

home,  10 

Hudson's  Bay  Company,  20 
Humboldt,  Alexander  von,  30 
Hunter,  R.  M.  T.,  96 


Illinois,  Douglas's  arrival  in,  1,  3,  5, 
12,  74,  92;  offices  held  by  Doug 
las  in,  2,  74;  presented  Douglas 
as  candidate  for  Presidency,  4; 
most  cultivated  and  only  college 
town  in,  7 ;  Douglas  ablest  cham 
pion  of  Democratic  party  in,  7,  10; 
method  of  announcing  candidacy 
in,  9;  Douglas  best-known  man 
in,  10;  saved  to  Democratic 
party  by  Douglas,  11;  Douglas 
foremost  orator  in,  11;  gave 
electoral  vote  to  Van  Buren,  11; 
compared  with  disputed  Oregon 
country,  21;  revenue  to,  from 
Illinois  Central  Railway,  23,  24; 
Douglas's  control  of,  39,  61; 
Douglas's  regard  for,  52;  ably 
represented  in  Senate  by  Douglas, 
69 ;  attacks  upon  Douglas  by  ad 
ministration  in,  70;  campaign  for 
senatorship  in,  70,  72,  75,  77,  79, 
88,  91;  distinction  conferred  by 
Douglas  upon,  75;  enthusiasm 
over  debates  in,  83;  Lincoln  at 
time  of  opening  of  debates  known 
only  in,  87,  102;  Douglas  sup 
ported  for  Presidency  in,  93,  94, 
101;  Lincoln's  majority  in,  101; 
threatened  war  in,  120,  121,  133; 
Union  army  men  from,  133;  last 
speeches  in,  135-139,  141-143. 
Illinois  Central  Railway,  23-25,  73 
Illinois  State  Register,  The,  82 
Inaugural  address,  President  Lin 
coln's,  124-128 
Indiana  in  Douglas  campaign,  93, 

100 

Ingersoll,  speeches  of,  87 
Internal    improvements,    Douglas's 
attitude  toward,  27,  73;    speech 
on,  235-242 

Iowa  in  Douglas  campaign,  93 
Isthmian  canal  projects,  30-33 


Jackson,  Andrew,  5-7,  9-12,  62,  73, 
131;  speech  in  vindication  of, 
145-155 

,  Fort,  115 


Jacksonville,  111.,  7,  8 

Jay,  John,  77 

Jefferson,  Thomas,  19,  77,  136 

Johnson,  Alexander  B.,  119 

Jonesboro  debate,  80 

Juan  de  Fuca,  Straits  of,  21,  22 


K 

Kansas,  55,  56,  58,  60-64,  66-69, 
73,  75,  77,  81,  90,  91,  95,  98,  131 

Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  55,  59,  73; 
speech  on,  187-217 

Knoxville,  Douglas  in,  43 


Land-grant  railways  of  various 
States,  24 

Land,  price  of,  raised  by  railway,  23 

Lane,  Joseph,  96 

Lanphere,  Judge,  47 

Law,  Douglas's  study  of,  2,  3,  7; 
his  practice  of,  7;  an  important 
precedent  established  in,  13 

Lecompton  Constitution,  60-64,  66- 
70,  72,  73,  79,  81,  90;  speech  on, 
218-234 

Lincoln,  Abraham,  2,  4,  33,  44-47, 
57,  69,  76-89,  91,  92,  98-105,  110, 
111,  116,  117,  122-130,  133,  134, 
136,  138 

"Little  Giant,  The"  (Stephen  A. 
Douglas),  11,  41,  42,  87,  88,  102 

Little  Rock  Arsenal,  115 

"Lost  Cause,  The,  a  New  Southern 
History  of  the  War  of  the  Con 
federates,"  E.  A.  Pollard,  115, 
140 

Louisiana,  5,  18,  114 

Purchase,  16,  19,  34,  35 

troops,  115 


Madison,  James,  19,  77,  136 

Mails  throughout  North  and  South, 
125 

Maine  in  Douglas  campaign,  93,  100 

Market  House,  Jacksonville,  111.,  8 

Marshall,  Chief  Justice,  77 

Martial  law  declared  by  Gen.  Jack 
son  at  New  Orleans,  5,  12 

Martin,  Martha  (Mrs.  Stephen  A. 
Douglas),  49,  59 

,  Col.  Robert,  49,  59 

Massachusetts  represented  in  House 
by  J.  Q.  Adams,  14 


INDEX 


291 


Mattison,  Governor,  of  Illinois,  27 

McMurtry,  Governor,  43,  47 

McRea,  Fort,  115 

Mexican  Gulf,  30 

War,  16-19,  26,  28,  73,  131; 

speech  on,  156-167 

Mexico,  35,  55 

Michigan  in  Douglas  campaign,  93 
— ,  Lake,  52 

Milburn,  Rev.  Wm.  H.,  8 

Milton,  highest  merit  ascribed  to,  78 

Minnesota  in  Douglas  campaign,  93 

Mississippi  River,  as  western  bound 
ary,  34 ;  in  heart  of  continent,  35 

,  secession  of,  114 

Missouri,  54,  103 

Compromise,  45,  51,  54-57,  75, 

78,  107 

Compromise  line,  54-56,  58,  74, 

75,  98,  106,  107,  134 

River,  26 

Mobile  Bay,  115 

Monroe,  President  James,  17,  19 

Montgomery,  Ala.,  Confederacy  or 
ganized  at,  114,  121,  127 

Morgan  Co.,  111.,  8 

,  Fort,  115 

Moses,  highest  merit  ascribed  to,  78 

Mother  of  Stephen  A.  Douglas,  3 

Moultrie,  Fort,  115 

Mount  Vernon,  Ala.,  115 

N 

National  Bank  under  President  Jack 
son,  7 

National  peace  conference,  106 

Nebraska,  55,  56,  58,  91,  98 

bill,  45,  56,  57,  66,  68 

Negro,  how  regarded  by  Douglas, 
58;  by  Lincoln,  82,  85 

New  England  Northern  sentiment 
opposed  to  Mexican  War,  16 

New  Hampshire  voted  for  Van 
Buren,  11;  in  Douglas  campaign, 
93 

New  Jersey  in  Douglas  campaign, 
103 

New  Mexico,  acquisition  of,  16,  28, 
73,  131 ;  in  Compromise  Measures 
of  1850,  39;  act  organizing,  91; 
proposition  to  admit  as  State,  109 

New  Orleans,  5,  12,  115 

,  battle  of,  5 

,  Island  of,  19 

New  York,  in  Douglas  campaign, 
93,  101;  Democratic  State  con 
vention  (1861)  in,  119-121,  139 


New  York  Times,  41 

North  America  under  one  flag, 
Douglas's  hope,  28 

North,  the,  interest  in  free  Oregon 
territory  in,  22,  26;  attitude  of, 
on  breaking  down  Missouri  Com 
promise  line,  58;  Democratic 
party  in  the,  90,  91,  98,  99,  101, 
103,  116-121,  131,  140;  senti 
ment  in,  since  Civil  War,  95; 
Douglas's  appeal  to  Republicans 
of,  107,  112,  121;  Jefferson 
Davis's  prophecy  as  to,  114; 
division  of,  116,  121,  127,  128; 
Southern  sympathizers  in,  141 

Northeastern  boundary  question  be 
tween  Great  Britain  and  United 
States,  21 

Nueces  River,  17,  18 

O 

Ohio  in  Douglas  campaign,  93,  100. 

101 
"Old    Man    Eloquent,  The"    (John 

Quincy  Adams),  14,  22 
Onis,  Don,  Spanish  Minister  (1819), 

18 
Oregon  boundary  question,   20-22, 

26,   28,    73,    131;     extracts   from 

two  speeches  on,  168 
Orient,  commerce  with  the,  22 
Ottawa  debate,  80,  88 


Pacific  coast,  British  vessels  on  the, 
20;  United  States  claim  on,  28 

Ocean,    proposed    connection 

of,  with  Mexican  Gulf  by  canal,  30 

railway,    Douglas's    attitude 

toward,   25,   26,   73;    speech  on, 
243-251 

Panama  Canal,  32,  33 
Pennsylvania  in  Douglas  campaign, 

100 

Pensacola  Navy  Yard,  115 
Personal  Liberty  laws,  118 
Phillips,  speeches  of,  87 
Pickens,  Fort,  115 
Pierce,  Franklin,  94 
Pike,  Fort,  115 
Pinckney,  C.  C.,  19 

,  Fort,  115 

Pitt,  speeches  of,  87 

Plato,  highest  merit  ascribed  to,  78 

Polk,  President,  16,  22 

Pollard,  Edward  A.,  115,  116,  140 


292 


INDEX 


Popular  sovereignty,  45,  59,  60,  68, 
77,  107,  131 

Presidency,  Douglas's  candidacy  for 
the,  4,  40,  53,  57,  90-104,  124, 
129-131,  133,  140;  Jackson's 
candidacy  for  the,  6;  Lincoln's 
candidacy  for  the,  98-104,  122, 
129 

President,  qualifications  for,  53 

Presidential  dictation  to  members 
of  Congress,  70-72 

Progress  of  United  States  as  ex 
pressed  by  Douglas,  32 

Puget  Sound,  21 

Pulaski,  Fort,  115 


Q 

Quincy  debate,  80 


Railway-building,  24,  25 
Reid,  Governor  David  S.,  59 
Republican  party,  57,  89,  99,  110, 

111,  118,  119 
Rio  del  Norte,  19 
Rio  Grande  Rase*)  17,  18 
River    and  "harbor    appropriations 

and  inland  waterways,  27 
Rockefeller,  John  D.,  50 
Rocky  Mountains,  34 


S 

"Sage  of  Ashland"  (Henry  Clay),  38 

St.  Philip,  Fort,  115 

Savannah,  115 

Secession  of  South,  95,  96,  103,  112- 
114,  119-121,  124-127,  138 

Secretary  of  War  under  President 
Buchanan,  see  Floyd,  Mr. 

Senate  chamber,  those  admitted  to, 
47 

Senate,  dignity  of  the,  65 

Seymour,  Governor,  119 

Silesia,  Frederick  the  'Great's  atti 
tude  toward,  22 

Slaveholders,  loss  to,  might  have 
been  averted,  95,  110;  of  border 
States,  127;  constitutional  rights 
of,  137 

Slavery,  54-60,  62,  63,  66,  68,  74, 
75,  77-82,  85,  90,  91,  95,  98,  99, 
106,  108-111,  117,  125,  131,  136, 
137 


Slaves,  Douglas's  attitude  toward, 
58,  59 

Soule,  Mr.,  35 

South  Carolina,  secession  of,  114 

troops,  115 

South,  the,  sentiment  opposed  to 
ascendency  of,  16;  opposed  to 
extension  of  free  territory,  22, 
26;  Douglas  committed  to,  58, 
60;  administration  under  con 
trol  of,  60 ;  urged  Lecompton  Con 
stitution  for  Kansas,  61 ;  Douglas 
adored  in,  63;  did  not  support 
Douglas  for  President,  90,  91, 
95-99,  101,  103,  131;  sentiment 
of,  since  war,  95;  steps  toward 
secession  of,  95,  96;  Douglas's 
attitude  toward,  106;  result  to, 
if  compromise  had  been  effected, 
110;  organization  of,  into  Con 
federacy,  114-116;  confidence  of, 
116-121;  Lincoln's  good  will 
toward,  122;  reception  of  Lin 
coln's  inaugural  in,  124;  security 
of  rights  of,  137 

Spain,  in  transfer  of  Louisiana,  18; 
of  Cuba,  113 

Springfield  Armory,  116 
speeches,  79,  82,  91,  135 

Squatter  sovereignty,  59,  98 

Stanton,  ex-Governor,  67 

State  sovereignty,  71 

Stephens,  Alexander  H.,  112,  114 

Stevenson,  Ala.,  Jefferson  Davis's 
speech  at,  114 

Sumter,  Fort,  128,  130 


Territorial  expansion  and  foreign 
aggression,  speech  on,  179-186 

Territories,  slave  and  free,  54-56, 
58-61,  66-68,  75,  77,  81,  90,  91, 
98,  110 

Texas,  boundary  of,  17-19,  31,  39; 
acquisition  of,  .35;  secession  of, 
114;  transfer  of,  to  Confederacy, 
116;  speech  on  annexation  of, 
156-167 

Thayer,  James  S.,  120 

Thomas,  Senator  Jesse  B.,  55 

"Tippecanoe  and  Tyler  too,"  10, 
11 

Tremont  House,  Chicago,  143 

Troy,  N.  Y.,  arsenal,  116 

Twiggs,  General,  116 


INDEX 


293 


u 

United  States,  foreign  policy  of, 
28,  29,  85-37;  in  Isthmian  canal 
projects,  30-33 

Utah,  in  Compromise  Measures  of 
1850,  39;  act  organizing,  91 


Van  Buren,  Martin,  9-11 
Vermont  in  Douglas  campaign,  93 
Virginia  resolutions  of  1798,  96 


W 

Wade,  Hon.  Benjamin  F.,  Ill 
Walker,  Robert  J.,  67 


Wai  worth,   Chancellor  Reuben   H., 

120 
War,  Douglas's  efforts  to  avert,  105- 

109,  112,  113,  121,  130,  132-141 
Washington,  George,  136,  137 
Watervliet    Arsenal,    Troy,    N.    Y., 

116 
Waterway  improvements,  Douglas's 

advocacy  of,  27,  73 
Webster,  Daniel,  74,  77,  85,  87 
West,  the,  Douglas's  attitude  toward, 

16 

Whig  party,  8,  39,  57 
"Wild-cat"  times,  46 
Williams,  Gen.  Robert,  49 
Winchester,  Scott  Co.,  111.,  1,  3,  8, 

92 
Wisconsin  in  Douglas  campaign,  93 


RETURN     CIRCULATION  DEPARTMENT 

TO—  *      202  Main  Library 

LOAN  PERIOD  1 
HOME  USE 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

Renewals  and  Recharges  may  be  made  4  days  prior  to  the  due  date. 

Books  may  be  Renewed  by  calling     642-3405. 


DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 

\-- 

EC'  D 

NO-   1      13Si 

AIITODISCNOVOVB1 

FORM  NO.  DD6 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 
BERKELEY,  CA  94720 


VC  58190 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


